Another prominent person seeking name suppression

Another prominent person seeking name suppression, this time a lawyer. Stuff reports:

Lawyer charged over drugs

A prominent Wellington lawyer is fighting to keep his name secret after being charged with drug offences.

Police say they found methamphetamine, LSD and ecstasy when they raided his house, office and car this month.

The man cannot be identified after he applied for an urgent order from the High Court last night to keep his name secret.

When first contacted by The Dominion Post on Monday, he flatly denied that he had been charged personally and said he was due to appear in court regarding clients’ records that had been seized by police.

“No, no, not me,” he said. “No, no, there was, no, that’s not right . . . I haven’t appeared in court.”

When asked directly if he had been involved personally in drugs in any way, he again said no.

“There’s all sorts of rumours going around . . . but . . . I’d be very careful there, man, because you know defamation and all that type of thing.”

Yesterday, when contacted again and told that police had confirmed he was facing charges, the lawyer continued to deny any knowledge.

“I haven’t been charged with anything. I haven’t been served with them,” he said.

Police confirmed that the lawyer had been charged with possession of methamphetamine, LSD and ecstasy, as well as possession of drug utensils. He has yet to make his first court appearance on the charges.

If he succeeds in protecting his own identity he casts suspicion on all prominent male Wellington lawyers.

People seeking legal services need to be able to have confidence they are dealing with a clean lawyer.

Innocent until proven guilty. It may be tough on this lawyer if he turns out to be not guilty, but all the other prominent male Wellington lawyers are presumed innocent and shouldn’t have suspicions cast on them.

 

National’s low-key campaign

The election campaign seems to have been effectively running for most of the year, with most parties announcing arrangements and candidates and policies.

National have been notably quiet. They did announce their party list last weekend – National mixes experience and new talent in 2014 list – with no real surprises. No surprises, steady as she goes seems to be National’s approach. This was evident when John Key stated his support party position on Monday – it was very predictable.

So far National have dribbled out minor policy statements, but nothing of real significance. Will they have any major new policies? Last election they announced their flagship asset sale policy early in election year.

Are National going to step up their campaign?

Or is their strategy to hold their support and let the other parties fight for position and fight for survival amongst themselves.

It isn’t without risks, especially as National candidates like Gerry Brownlee and Nick Smith and ex-candidates like Claudia Hauiti seem to have relaxed their standards too much. This could be damaging.

So far National look to have tried to run a very relaxed low-key campaign. The danger with that is uninspired voters may be too relaxed to bother getting out and voting.

Cunliffe lying about electorate deals?

While David Cunliffe criticises National for doing electorate deals in Epsom and Ohariu, and insists Labour will not do any electorate deals, there are reports from Te Tai Tokerau that Labour have effectively thrown the electorate, leaving it to Internet Mana..

Is this a case of Labour doing something different to what they claim, and doing what they criticise National for doing? If so this is deceitful.

In NZ Herald Cunliffe denies double standards over deals:

Labour leader David Cunliffe has denied he has double standards for refusing to rule out relying on the Internet Mana party to form a government despite deriding National for its coat tailing deals in Epsom and Ohariu.

Mr Cunliffe has accused National of manipulating voters by using the coat-tailing provisions to try to boost its support partners’ chances through electorate deals in Epsom and Ohariu.

However, he will not rule out calling on the Internet Mana Party if needed to form a Government.

There appears to be double standards and deceit there.

Mr Cunliffe said he had made it clear it was “extremely unlikely” any Internet Mana Party MPs would get ministerial positions, or even lower level associate or undersecretary roles in a Labour-led Government.

But he would not rule out policy concessions in return for their votes, saying that was a matter to discuss after the election. “We will talk to whoever the voters serve up.”

But there are claims that Labour are ‘manipulating voters by using the coat-tailing provisions’ to try to boost Hone Harawira’s chances  in Te Tai Tokerau.

Mr Cunliffe denied it was a double standard.

“Because I’m not trying to tell New Zealanders who to vote for. I’m being absolutely plain that they should vote Labour with two ticks.”

That doesn’t appear to be what’s happening in Te Tai Tokerau, despite Labour’s candidate Kelvin Davis previously saying he would vigorously contest the electorate.

A resident of the Far North commented on Kiwiblog:

A couple of earlier commenters mentioned Davies winning TTT. Forget it. He is invisible, no signage in the North. None. Labour have hung him out to dry again. A vote for labour is a vote for the Harawira crime family and Kim Dotcom.

And a similar story at No Minister:

NEWSFLASH … LABOUR CONCEDES TE TAI TOKERAU TO HONE

So much for the hypocritical beating from Labour about National doing ‘deals’ in Epsom and Ohariru (leaving aside the fact that MMP is all about doing deals).   It is now clear the Cunliffe and Labour, have done exactly that and conceded Te Tai Tokerau to Hone in a deal that should let the Mana/Internet Party come in with three MPs (based on their current pollling).

What’s the evidence for that?     Well, the Vet and Mrs Vet took a trip up to Kaitaia on Saturday for a meeting of the Far North Vietnam veterans.    On the way up we encountered numerous National Party signs; a sad looking half sign promoting Labour’s Northand candidate; two signs from a weird mob called Focus New Zealand ; a heap of signs from Hone, but from Kelvin Davis, the Te Tai Tokerau Labour candidate, zip zero nothing, nothing at all.

And I am told suma suma in the southern part of the electorate.

…now it’s clear that Cunliffe and Labour have pulled the rug from Davis as a serious player…

It may be that Kelvin Davis and Labour are yet to launch a candidate campaign in Te Tai Tokerau. I’m trying to check that out with him.

But at this stage of the campaign it looks like David Cunliffe may not be being truthful about Labour’s electorate intent.

UPDATE: Cunliffe has just spoken on Firstline repeating that Labour would contest electorates “up and down the country” and wouldn’t support coat tailing.

UPDATE 2: Kelvin Davis has responded this morning “That is a pure beat up. Im out to win the seat.” But he hasn’t replied yet when I asked when he was putting hoardings up.

Paul Henry: The rights and wrongs of name suppression

Last night on TV3 Paul Henry spoke to lawyer and ex-Act MP Stephen Franks on name suppression in relation to a prominent New Zealander exposed (except for his name) by Rodney Hide in a series of Herald on Sunday columns.

Name suppression controversy for prominent New Zealander

A prominent New Zealander who pleaded guilty in 2011 to committing an indecent act has been given permanent name suppression.

His name cannot be released but due to a chain of events started by a column in a weekend newspaper, this Kiwi man is being compared to Rolf Harris.

So should he have got suppression in the first place? And is suppression all meaningless in the age of the internet?

Lawyer and former ACT MP Stephen Franks joins Paul from Wellington to discuss whether this man should have been given name suppression when it was not given to protect the victim.

“It’s pretty weird that the judge has decided that it would cause extreme hardship for them to face the normal shame that offenders are supposed to face,” says Mr Franks. “The law has had various wording for extreme hardship, but it turns on whether there is a suicide rick or a loss of livelihood.”

Paul Henry’s introduction:

There is a prominent New Zealander out there who pleaded guilty in 2011 to committing an indecent act.  You won’t find his name in the mainstream media. He’s been given permanent name suppression.

We can’t tell you his name, obviously, but many people know it thanks to a chain of events started by a column in a weekend newspaper which compared this Kiwi man to Rolf Harris.

Tonight a simple Google search will identify him for you.

So, should he have got suppression in the first place, and is it all meaningless in the age of the Internet?

Video at: Name suppression controversy for prominent New Zealander

Conservative disappointment in Craig

While some Conservatives are disappointed that John Key has shut the door on an electorate deal for Colin Craig other conservatives were already disappointed in Colin Craig, who has been called a faux conservative.

In 2011 the Conservatives were excused for being under prepared because the party had only been launched a couple of months before the election.

Three years later Craig had a chance to promote himself and the party and has failed to impress all but the faithful and the blindly hopeful. He has been noticed more for his gaffes, some odd promotional photos and a lot of political naivety.

And while the Conservative Party has a slogan of “Stand For Something” it’s difficult to know what they stand for apart from supporting smacking (the single issue that seems to have driven Craig since he stepped into the political arena), an impractical bottom line on binding binding referenda and a small number of other populist policies.

The Conservative Issues web page has only four policies with scant detail.

A number of conservatives and Conservative supporters have been regulars at Kiwiblog.  Comments from National announces coalition choices sum up sentiments:

Tinshed:

I regard myself as a conservative but find I have very little, if anything, in common with Colin Craig and his Conservative Party. The right decision.

Queenstreetfarmer:

What idiots ever thought Colin Craig was “conservative” anyway, let alone a trustworthy ally for National?

iMP (who has been a prominent supporter of Craig and the Conservatives):

Well, here’s a reality check and a prediction:.

1. The polls will close and Labour will come back some, as NZers ‘re-balalnce’ a lop-sided race.
2. National will get 47-48% on polling day, much the same result as 2011, not enough to govern.
3. They will lose badly in canterbury, which will swell the PVote to Labour and some seats will change hands.
3. Having been sidelined in favour of polygamy and Cabinet leaking leaders, the Consvs will breach the threshold in their own right.
4. On 21 Sept. JK will be forced either to court Winston or Colin Craig (there simply aren’t enough vote on the C-Right).
5. CC will demand more than he would’ve otherwise, having made parl. in his own right, and build for the future whole NZF dissipates with Winnie’s health.
6. Labour will work strategically to win Ohariu and help split the vote in Epsom.

National has no friends left; the pickings on the C-R just got much leaner.

Chthoniid:

Sometimes his party really comes across less as a coherent political entity and more as a vanity project. Nailing his colours to the binding referendum issue, kind of signals he’s nursing some resentment over the failure of the 2009 smacking-referendum.

Changeiscoming:

As a supporter of the Conservative Party I am very pleased JK has made this decision. I didn’t want the party beholden to National, now it’s all on. I don’t want to hear any complaints on the 21st of Sept when the Nats find themselves a couple of percentage points short.

Georgebolwing:

Colin Craig is a looney and to endorse him in any way would have driven urban liberal votes to ACT in droves to make sure that National had enough dependable partners to govern.

Maybe, someday, someone sane will attempt to form a conservative party that isn’t just a bunch of ratbag populist christians fixated with the sexual practices of others. Such a party might offer National some support. But the CCCP is just a rich guy trying to pretend to be a politician. He should leave it to the experts. At least the other rich guy trying to buy the election has had the good sense to hire professionals.

Longknives

I’m a National/National man but can anybody tell me why Colin Craig is considered such a “looney”? He seems to have some good ideas…

ShawnLH

When the CP first got off the ground I thought “yes! finally a conservative party to vote for!” But as time went on I saw very little policy focus on areas of concern to social conservatives, and a lot of pilfering from NZF. Well, I could if inclined vote for NZF so why do I need NZF v2?

Then there was Craig himself. Early on I was happy to defend Craig and overlook his oddities, but as the whole issue of a seat came to the fore he started looking far more dicey. His “bottom line” demand when his party was only just scoring 2% in the polls was arrogant and naive.

So sadly I think JK has made the right decision. Craig would not beat McCully in a straight contest, no matter how many nods and winks ECB voters were given, and forcing them to vote for him by pulling McCully would have drawn a big fat target on National in a way that the other deals do not.

And despite Red’s fantasies Craig and the CP was never going to be the Saviour of the Right.

Craig and his Conservative Party will now have try and do it the hard way by getting to 5%.

Conservative son of NationalAttacking National hasn’t worked out very well.

 

Craig’s contradictions

Colin Craig didn’t rule out taking advantage of a helping hand from National in East Coast Bays but now John Key has ruled it out …

After weeks of speculation, Prime Minister John Key has indicated that he will not pull Mr McCully from the seat.

…as reported by NZ Herald – Craig: ‘Better for us’ if McCully stands in East Coast Bays Craig says he didn’t want Murray McCully to stand aside for him.

Conservative Party leader Colin Craig says he’d prefer National incumbent Murray McCully to stand in East Coast Bays, and has taken a shot at the deals National does with the Act and United Future parties.

He said he did not expect to beat Mr McCully in East Coast Bays this election.

Yeah right. And…

And he has opened the door to Labour, especially if they are open to his bottom line of binding referenda.

But Mr Craig said he supported a third term for National, if they won the largest share of the party vote – though he could not rule out working with Labour.

If Labour agreed to the Conservative’s bottom line of binding referenda, and National did not, then “that would be a very interesting scenario, and perhaps Labour would be prepared to do that”.

He has repeated  a number of times that he’d go with the party with the largest vote, which will obviously be National.

But now he’s saying that if Labour give him what he wants on binding referenda he will consider going with them instead.

Craig seems to be trying to compete with Winston Peters in coalition horse trading stakes, albeit in a more ham fisted way.

 

Campaign “at a delicate stage” for Labour

How can I put this delicately?

Greg Presland has posted  The election campaign is at a delicate stage: at The Standard:

We are entering an interesting phase of the election campaign and a number of recent events may have a critical effect on the eventual outcome.

Firstly nothing is more important in politics than momentum.  The latest Colmar Brunton poll result 1 suggests that Labour may be developing some of that most cherished of political assets, momentum in the polls.

Thankfully the slide in Labour’s support has reversed and there has been a healthy increase from poll results with Labour polling nearly 5% above the recent Roy Morgan and a previous Ipsos poll results.

‘Swordfish’ has been analysing polls and gives some detail:

Labour’s Poll Support – June/July in chronological order

JUNE
28, 31, 23, 27, 29, 28

JULY
24, 25, 27, 27, 28

So, Labour’s does seem to have largely bounced back from that little trough.

So Labour are back to where they were at the start and end of June. As far as polling goes the last three results have been virtually the same – which coincidentally is virtually the same as their record low result in the 2011 election.

The 23 and 24 results were weeks apart so may be blips in general trends. If so that means Labour is pretty much flatlining, taking into account margin of error, which is about +/- 2.75 for 27% with a sample size of 1000.

Another comment points out the slight drop in support from the previous One News/Colmar poll…

National has climbed to 52% in the latest ONE News/Colmar Brunton poll while Labour is down one point to 28%.

Labour on 28% is just above its 2011 election result and the Greens have also slipped, dropping two points to 10%.

…which puts National on 52% compared to Labour+Green on 38%. That does look a wee bit delicate.

Tom Gould points out:

Breathing a sign of relief that support only dropped one per cent to 28 whereas the Tories only rose two per cent to 52, and the gap between Labour and Green versus the Tory only widened to 14 points, hardly shows the campaign at “a delicate stage”. T

What looks “delicate” is the grasp on reality.

Activists like Presland have to try and sound positive – especially with a Labour slogan of Vote Positive – but trying to talk up a mangy dog of a position risks looking out of touch as Tom eluded to.

Presland does try to explain his post…

1 This post has been written in a style which right wing commentators usually use.

…but it doesn’t sound anything like the style any tight wing commentators I know of use, let alone a supposed collective “right wing commentators”.

It’s difficult for Labour to promote themselves in what looks like a dire  situation. Talking sunshine in a cyclone can look more than a bit out of touch.

Labour should at least be trying to convince voters they know how to use an umbrella.

Polls and election prospects

A number of recent polls have given pointers to where the parties stand with less than two months to go until the election.

National

National have been polling in the high forties through to mid fifties but are expected to drop back a few percent in the final count. They are aware of this and are trying to minimise that drop by playing as safe a game as possible.

They have had some hiccups with embarrassments through Claudia Hauiti (now withdrawn from candidacy) and Gerry Brownlee’s airport security slip-up. Hauiti was National’s lowest ranked MP so she won’t be a loss, and Brownlee has front footed the damage control with what appears to be genuine contriteness.

National have just announced their list with no real surprises. They will say this week what other parties they will be prepared to work with and give a nod to some potential support parties in electorates.

They have yet to reveal much about policies. There main plank seems to be more of the same, steady sensible management of the economy.

That will be enough to win the most seats by far but they are not expected to get enough to rule on their own so their fortunes may be dictated by small parties. They will be hoping Winston Peters isn’t the main dictator.

Likely result range 45-50%.

Labour

The polls have not been good for Labour with the last twelve results being in the twenties, as low as 23%.

David Cunliffe continues to fail to impress as leader. He says his string of apologies are behind him but he is dropping in preferred Prime Minister polls, the latest having him on 8%. Some hope he will show his mettle in leader’s debates but it’s unlikely he will do enough to shine over the seasoned Key.

Media are writing Labour off and talking more about how low they might go instead of how much they might get. There’s good reason for this, they look divided and disorganised.

Labour’s best hope seems to limit the damage and not get any lower than their record low in 2011 of 27.28%. A more common hope is probably that their vote doesn’t collapse.

Likely result range 20-29%.

Green Party

The Greens bounce around in the polls, usually in the 10-15% range.

They look to be the best organised party by a long shot, and seem determined to finally get into Government. They deserve it on their own efforts but they are relying on Labour who will be worrying and disappointing them.

Without Labour improving substantially Greens look like at best competing for attention and influence amongst a mish mash coalition but more likely being denied by Labour’s failure.

Many voters are happy to see Greens in the mix but one negative is there is a wariness (and in some cases fear) of Greens getting to much influence, especially on economic matters. Some Green good, too much Green scary is a common sentiment.

Likely result range 10-15%.

NZ First

NZ First have been polling from a bit under to a bit over the magic 5%.

Most expect them to lift a bit in the run up to voting as happened last year but National will be taking as much care as possible not to hand Winston Peters another opportunity like the cup of tea debacle.

Peters is a seasoned campaigner and the media help his cause because he is good for stories, but time will tell whether there is too much seasoning in the old warrior and too little substance in the rest of the party as the other MPs have failed to impress.

One thing that may make it harder is direct competition for attention  and votes with the Conservative Party.

Likely result range 4-6%.

Maori Party

Poll results have been low for the Maori Party. That doesn’t usually matter because in all elections they have contested so far they have got more electorate seats than their party vote would give them so it has been unnecessary. Last election they got 1.43%.

It’s tougher for them in electorates this time with Pita Sharples and Tariana Turia retiring. It will be challenging for them to retain their current three seats, with some suggesting they might lose most or all of them.

There will be strong competition from the Dotcom financed MANA Party, but they may be helped by Labour’s woes.

For the first time the party vote may matter to the Maori Party, especially if they only hold one electorate seat.

Likely result range 1-2%.

Conservative Party

Polls have been in the 1-3% range. It’s now looking unlikely National will help Colin Craig in an electorate so they may have to get 5% to make it. That will be difficult, especially if Winston Peters competes openly with them.

Formed just before the last election the Conservatives got 2.65% and hope to improve on that. They have had much more exposure but that may have lost as much support as it has gained. Craig still seems politically naive. He has tried to turn the ‘Crazy Colin’ meme to his advantage but that’s a risky strategy.

Conservative fortunes are relying on National’s decision this week but it’s not looking positive for them.

UPDATE: John Key has just stated that National won’t help Craig in East Coast Bays so Conservatives only hope is getting 5%, which looks a big hurdle.

Likely result range 2-3%.

ACT Party

Act has been polling poorly, often under 1%.

Act were in turmoil last election with a very Brash takeover and installing John Banks as Epsom candidate. Banks won to save Act but has had a troubled term.

Act have made a concerted effort to rebuild over two elections. They have split responsibilities between Jamie Whyte as party leader and David Seymour in Epsom. Seymour looks a good bet in Epsom but the political jury is still out on Whyte and Act.

Much could come down to how Whyte looks in the minor party debates. He is intelligent and has good political knowledge but can look to serious and too polite – he hasn’t been forceful enough in interviews.

Act may benefit from being an alternative to giving National sole charge.

Likely result range 1-3%.

United Future

UnitedFuture has been languishing in polls, as often on 0% as slightly above.

More than ever UF hopes seem to rest solely on Peter Dunne in Ohariu. His chances are reasonable there. He has held the seat for thirty years so is very well known. He hasn’t had the best of terms but seems determined to rebuild his credibility.

Dunne looks to have been helped by all the major parties:

  • National have a new candidate who looks likely to campaign for the aprty vote only and has been given an almost certain list position.
  • Labour’s Charles Chauvel resigned mid term and has been replaced by a relative unknown.
  • Green’s Gareth Hughes has withdrawn from the electorate to promote youth and party vote and has been replaced by someone.

Like last election voters are likely to return Dunne and ignore the party. The party seems to be virtually ignoring the party.

Likely result range 0.3-0.7%.

Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

ALCP rarely feature in opinion polls, but they manage to get votes in elections. In 2011 they got 0.52%.

They are under new management this time and are likely to get some stoner and protest votes but 5% is just too high a hurdle for the influential media to pay them any attention.

Likely result range 0.4-0.8%.

Internet Mana Party

As a newly formed combo IMP have been polling 1-2%. They have a huge budget so will feature in the attention seeking stakes.

And while Kim Dotcom can’t stand as a candidate his attention seeking will keep him to the forefront of party success or failure.

Dotcom is promising a town hall circus five days before election day – he thinks this will destroy John Key and National but it could just as easily backfire.

His personal crusade is to oust the National Government. He is more likley to fracture the left wing vote and scare people off a Labour let government.

IMP’s monetary might will gain them some party votes but may fail in the ultimate aim.

Likely result range 2-4%.

Summary

IMP could be pivotal in the final result but it looks most likely to be a failure for them and a win for National with a few small allies.

Rodney Hide, David Cunliffe and a “sexual predator”

Rodney Hide has continued his series of columns about a sexual offender with name suppression in Predator hiding in clear sight. Hide states that he believes David Cunliffe did not know the person was an offender when he met what Hide refers to as a “sex predator”.

I was wrong when I claimed that leading politicians knew the name of the “prominent” New Zealander hiding behind name suppression. David Cunliffe did not.

The Labour leader has met the sex predator. “If I had known of the suggestion [that the man was a sex predator hiding behind name suppression], no such meeting would have taken place.” I am sure that’s true.

Hide may be right. But there is doubt over that The above quote is from the Herald last Monday, but on Tuesday Cunliffe spoke on this in a standup Interview. Barry Soper (Newstalk ZB):

Mr Cunliffe admits a prominent New Zealander’s possible sexual offending had been raised with him before he met with the man in Queenstown last week.

The Labour leader says the meeting went ahead because no proof had been supplied.

“There is a suspicion that a person who asked to meet me and my candidate down there might be a person in that category. All I can say is had I known that, and we did ask around if there was any reason not to meet, we wouldn’t have had the meeting.”

Whichever of those explanations is accurate (if either of them are) we now have a problem. This is an important issue leading into an election campaign and because of the name suppression of the offender media are very reluctant to investigate this as they normally would be sure to do.

If Cunliffe did not know of the person’s offending or his reputation (which Hide has previously said was well known in Parliament) before meeting him then it would have just been an unfortunate embarrassment for Cunliffe, especially having just made a strong statement to a Rape Crisis group.

But Cunliffe is unable to clarify if this is this case.

And unfortunately for Cunliffe the alternative and more embarrassing scenario that Soper reported on, which is unclear and potentially contradictory of Cunliffe’s earlier claim, is getting some coverage. And the media seem reluctant to explore this because of the name suppression.

With an election looming the voters should know what the true version is on this story.

Name suppression protecting a “prominent person” is preventing this from being clarified.

And worse, it means that people are not warned about this man’s apparently recidivist predatory sexual behaviour. Hide is right when he concludes:

The sex predator’s prominence is such that Cunliffe was attracted to meet him. Knowing the sex pest’s background and history it’s easy to see why. We are all attracted to and flattered by the attention of “prominent” men.

We have a sex offender in our midst. He has not been shamed. He has no remorse. His prominence makes him attractive for women to pass time with. Name suppression means they don’t know to be wary. His “prominence” means women drop their guard.

Does anyone other than the offender have a responsibility should he offend again? The judge who felt the poor man had suffered “a bit of a cross” by being prosecuted? Our MPs for their silence and name suppression laws?

What would we say to his victim if he attacks again? And, ask yourself, what’s the culture in New Zealand that your answers imply?

The offender is sort of protected from embarrassment.

But women of New Zealand, especially women of Queenstown in this instance, may not be aware of the potential danger that this man may pose to them if they don’t know who he is and what he has done.

Note: if the offender in the case at the centre of this issue is unfairly being labelled a “sexual predator” that can’t even be publicly explored.

Setting the record straight

Yesterday a blogger made a number of erroneous assertions, it seems for self aggrandising and malicious reasons.

“BREAKING”

He headlined something as “BREAKING” – it was not news and the only thing he broke was rules of decent journalism to try and score points for himself and for some reason score points against me.

False assertion

He made a false legal assertion and in fact may have done what he claimed I did.

“Strong links”

He claimed I have “strong links” with a politician. I have proof that he knows this is incorrect. I’ve never had strong links with any politician and I haven’t have any links with any politician apart from general inquiries to a range of politicians seeking or providing information. The “strong links” claim seems to have been a deliberately dishonest way of identifying me without naming me. The politician named has no connection to the issues being highlighted as far as I’m aware so I question the motive for including him.

Published full details”

It is incorrect that I “published full details” of anything. He created a link between what I posted and a separate issue but only for people who knew certain information.

Retraction and apology

Earlier yesterday the blogger apologised for making an incorrect assertion about an MP (but then went on to make excuses and more assertions so it was barely an apology).

If the blogger considers himself to be any sort of decent journalist and his considers his blog to be a credible media outlet he might consider retracting and apologising for what appears to be reckless links and malicious assertions.

If the blogger can show that his intent was not malicious I will retract and apologise for claiming that.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 217 other followers