Is Hager suing?
The Hive notes that Radio New Zealand has removed from its website, the audio of Monday’s Focus on Politics.
It has been suggested that Nicky Hager is threatening Radio New Zealand with defamation over the item – presumably over Matthew Hooton’s comments rather than Laila Harre’s.
I am not sure if it is true, but imagine if it was Nicky Hager being threatened with defamation. We’d probably hear all about how big monied interests are trying to silence him.
A defamation case would be fascinating. I’d love to hear testimony on how the e-mails were not stolen, and the ability for this to be cross-examined.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Laila Harre, Matthew Hooton, Nicky Hager, Radio NZ, stolen e-mails
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:42 pm
The Hive is as astute as ever. The audio is right here
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Radio New Zealand is just another tentacle of the Liarbour octopus. Now they plan a hollow man documentary, no doubt screened on prime time Liarbour controlled television. Oh, the propaganda puppets are everywhere. How bad can it get for pissed off kiwi’s?
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Danyl – it is however now missing from the podcast feed (and it was there earlier and stuff from last week is still there).
DPF – Focus on Politics is once a week on Fridays – it differs from “from the left and from the right”.
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Um… you know that free to air television will never screen a documentary that doesn’t feature fat people or breasts, don’t you?
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:49 pm
” I’d love to hear testimony on how the e-mails were not stolen”
You men you’d like to know the name of the National Party Mole?
Just a tip David, real journalists do not reveal their sources.
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Graeme – is it defamatory to ask questions like: “Are we going down the track where people are not able to choose their own advisors and little spooks like Nicky Hager can steal people’s property and make all sorts of allegations about it?” This seems quite close to the line by Hooten but it is only a hypothetical question and it says “people like” rather than “people such as”. Nothing else seems to come close to defamation.
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Yes, that’s defamatory.
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:55 pm
I think they key to there George was the word “steal”
I wonder what Nicky has saved for the SST this Sunday?
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:57 pm
But the emails were stolen.
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:59 pm
“Just a tip David, real journalists do not reveal their sources.”
Putting aside the questionable suggestion that Hagar is a journalist, I note that they do when held in the Court cells charged with contempt of court.
sonic Ive been away for awhile but catching up on this blog I must say you absolutely reek of desperation.
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:00 pm
How?
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Danyl – it is however now missing from the podcast feed
Maybe I’m special but it is clearly visible in my iTunes podcast feed (which is how I found it).
OTOH, Hooton makes a couple of statements that must sail pretty close to defamation. And I’d imagine if it all washed up in court it would be up to him to prove that Hager DID steal the emails not Hager to prove that he didn’t.
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:01 pm
I hope he repeats that Hagar is the Patricia Bartlett of New Zealand politics again every week until the election. (and Patricia Bartlett was a nasty vile woman who I hope is rotting in hell as she deserves to)
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Real journalists HAVE sources that will stand up in court.
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Danyl – and I downloaded it from here – http://www.radionz.co.nz/podcasts/ninetonoon.rss – where it is no longer.
It is also not here – http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/20080630 – but I’m not certain it ever was, because who really wants streaming audio?
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Perhaps Crosby Textor should take a case against Hagar?. nevertheless I’d be interested if the matter ever went to court as it may answer a few questions
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Correct Murray. Hager has friends in the politicized police who turned a blind eye to theft. Oh too be in the Aunty Helen club of corruption!! Hager is a criminal.
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:17 pm
That’s fascinating DPF. I looked for the link on the RNZ National website yesterday and it wasn’t there. I emailed them and asked where it was and they haven’t emailed me back.
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:23 pm
If you listen to Hooton he immediately corrects and says ‘receiving’ stolen property is theft, and Hagar has received stolen property
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:32 pm
D4J
I wonder if it has dawned on TVNZ that a change in govt might result in a new board with very different priorities than the current one and they may not include the retention or use of those who have been so biased – keep them on but keep them out so their lack of exposure renders them less employable at least until another change in governement.
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Hooton should be appointed to the RNZ board!
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:50 pm
I keep looking at the latest developments on the NZ political scene and throwing up.
Imagine if Helen Clark was Vladimir Putin and Nicky Hager was a journalistic lapdog of Vladimir Putin. NOTHING of what has transpired over the whole “stolen e-mails” saga would be at all out of place.
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:51 pm
SONC dear sonic I as a WORKER wouldnt vote for a party that has a thief (hager/ craig potton) as a major liarbour supporter , sonic i have standards to live to. YOU sonic have liarbour (pathetic fool)
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Yes freethinker, TVNZ is pathetic piffle and about this time of night I get a dose of angst.
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Graeme Edgeler Says:
“Yes, that’s defamatory.”
Graeme, even if you’re correct, I believe there are defences available here: for example, that the claimant is incapable of further defamation…
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:57 pm
You might want to ask Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter how well that defense worked in the defamation action Roman Polanski brought against the magazine. Hint: Not at all.
Still, if Sue, Grabbit and Runne are firing off nastygrams on behalf of Hager (and I wouldn’t rule out a cock-up on the technical front) what a delicious joke! The brave speaker of inconvenient truth to power trying to stifle free speech and debate on public radio.
But, Danyl and Graeme, I sure can’t see the link on the RNZ home page at
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/20080630
Every other feature is there, as far as I can tell.
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Whats wrong with National?. If I thought someone was spying or stealing emails from me I would set the bastards up. National are either slow leaners or they have hooked some fish and are having a good play with them, prehaps the slimy bastard that is Hager has swallowed the bait.There is no better way to flush out the sharks then putting out a trail of blood and guts or secret gossip.
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Would be great if someone from CT was at Drinking Liberally. Or perhaps the team there will post the speech online.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:06 pm
So Hagar doesn’t like people saying nasty things about him?
Diddums
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Perhaps a qualified privilege’s defense – a wrinkle on the Lange v Atkinson line of cases.
Hagar has fully and absolutely entered the political arena – perhaps the Courts might accept making an analogy with a Pol or bureaucrat.
We haven’t had a good political defamation case in a while.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Just to go totally out on a limb here… perhaps everyone is otherwise engaged in productive activity, especially those folks who aren’t employed at public expense to indulge their inner James Bond?
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:15 pm
from what I’ve read in this thread I deduce hagar is a Liarbour.
I don’t know why I haven’t made that connection b4.
But where is ‘redbus’ and is he lying low over certain video defamations of John Keys??
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:28 pm
riki
Remember “Seeds of mistrust”? Hagar is neither Liarbour nor Labour.
Me thinks that his source is a senior National MP who detested Brash and cannot stand Key and fears for the future of the party that he or she thinks is about freedom and Mainstream New Zealand. He or she is also someone who believes in honesty and is dying to actually talk about policy and their view of the country’s future and what they will actually do if elected.
They are getting very frustrated…
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:48 pm
yes. all national’s ernest attempts to keep their poll results from soaring into the stratosphere have failed. they look set to endure a massive landslide victory. frustrating and tragic.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:51 pm
SSB. HAve you just figured it out, slow Learners.
July 4th, 2008 at 12:21 am
When the fuck will every media outlet stop referring to Hager and that aberrant loser Alistair Barry as ‘journalists’?
July 4th, 2008 at 12:22 am
PS Dulley – pull H2′s hand out of your arse and try to have a thought of your own…
July 4th, 2008 at 2:41 am
MICKEYSAVAGE
[i]Me thinks that his source is a senior National MP who detested Brash and cannot stand Key and fears for the future of the party [/i]
I find it very hard to believe that any senior National MP would want to sabotage their chances in the upcoming election. First of all, if they were so senior, they would stand to make a definate financial benefit if National gets in and secondly, they would have much more leverage for exposure once in government.
From what I have seen, I would blame a leaky, Labour-led parliamentary email provider. You will notice that it is only external corrospondance that has been leaked and not information from private networks that would be used to discuss private matters.
If NH was able to provide a leak on upcoming National party policy, that would indicate he has an actual insider. The fact he can only come up with basically external corrospondance means he, most likely, is mates with a labour activist parliamentary email support person or is supporting their drug habit.
July 4th, 2008 at 4:56 am
Gasp!
You dont mean that someone from the 9th floor/the standard is a theiving lying criminal do you?
You cant say that!
Even if it was true, you need evidence to say that.
July 4th, 2008 at 7:42 am
2DD
Maybe there is no policy to leak because none has been written??
Of course there is the deep dark secret that may be coming to screens any time now…
I have heard private comments by a National MP that suggests that all is not good in Keys land.
Anyway there is absolutely no evidence of theft even though the experts have been through the systems a number of times. Internal leak appears to be the most likely secnario.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:18 am
you mean alls not well with the deadbeats he’s bouncing out the door?
interbal leak – aka hagar taking some very astute guesses with the help of labours 9th floor flunkies and their access to facilities.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:23 am
mickeysavage, the only thing coming to our screens any time now is more shit, fabricated smears, evidence of overdue library books and outright lies from a corrupt Labour government who see impending doom. it’s too delicious to watch
July 4th, 2008 at 8:28 am
almost as delicious as seeing the deadbeats at the substandard try and act as if they are impartial. fucking retards
haha ahahahhahahahahahah
July 4th, 2008 at 9:03 am
Let Hager have his day in court. He is not likely to get very far: he cannot show his hands are clean The Police should have nailed him: Mr PLod seems to have distinguished between a “leak” and a “theft” because of uncertainty of source. However, if I give away property with which I am entrusted, anyone receiving it, knowing they are not entitled to be in possession of it, is an accomplice in my crime. If they knew that the source was not entitled to give it to them, they are plainly an accomplice. For Hager to use the diverted property is almost certainly criminal and he should be prosecuted accordingly and the proceeds attempted to be recovered under law.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:22 am
“..I find it very hard to believe that any senior National MP would want to sabotage their chances in the upcoming election. First of all, if they were so senior, they would stand to make a definate financial benefit if National gets in..”
possibly not everyone works with/off your (obvious) shallow/self-interested/venal ‘moral-code’..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 4th, 2008 at 9:26 am
KevOB, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, makes it a lot harder.
I don’t know how ‘property’ works with received emails, but I would’ve thought it becomes one’s property, thus one can do whatever one wants with it…?
July 4th, 2008 at 9:27 am
This argument must have been had before, someplace…
July 4th, 2008 at 10:14 am
“When the fuck will every media outlet stop referring to Hager and that aberrant loser Alistair Barry as ‘journalists’?”
Quite right. Too good a title for Hagar anyway.
No journalist in this country could’ve written hollow men.
He completely embarrassed journalism.
But they are constrained to socialist margins.
We need more presenters who refuse to report on Paris Hilton for a start.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:15 am
“This argument must have been had before, someplace…”
That’s what blogs are about mate.
Continuing the issues after the talkback hosts move on.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Yup, or until DPF makes his next delivery of a blizzard of posts…
This argument on this *blog* I meant, hmmm…
July 4th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
“KevOB, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, makes it a lot harder.”
True, but a murderer can be prosecuted even in the absence of a body.
Hager has explaining to do. In my view Hager is in possession of property which he knows that whoever passed it on, (assuming he didn’t take it himself), had no right to do, and that that person was at the very least in breach of contract or a thief. The common law related to being an accessory seem to fit. E-mails are a form of property even if not on paper.
Hager cannot come to court to enforce anything related to this as he plainly does not have “clean hands” and cannot expect a court to continue his dirty work.
If I had been a prosecutor now, I would have put a case for him to answer.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
You’d have to know who passed them on first, presumably. Otherwise the defence can easily provide reasonable doubt – case closed.
Also the question of ‘public interest’ often comes up with this sort of activist investigation – watergate, and tobacco insiders come to mind, but not sure if they are strictly applicable to this example.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Graeme, not sure if you’re still about (I wouldn’t be) but…
I’m wondering how disclosure would work in this case. For all that the burden is on the defence to show it’s truth (at least for a ‘truth’ defence) I recall the defence in the David Irving case managed to get pretty much whatever was relevant out of Irving’s papers and diaries. Much the same here?
And not that anyone appears remotely clear on what’s happening, but if it were me then someone pointing out something was (potentially) defamatory would probably be at least as effective as treatening to sue. Given there is no evidence I’ve noticed that they were “stolen” it’s not a potition I’d be inclined to back.
On a more general point the technical definition of theft cannot be made to apply here. And just because someone is expected – even under some contractual obligation – not to tell you something, that’s doesn’t mean you should be forbidden pass it on. Though I imagine (based on the Salient case) there are some caveats.
July 4th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Actually, since it’s Friday, here’s some less restrained opinion. If you haven’t seen it:
Scientists Discover Parallel Universe Where Hager Hacked Nat Emails
Probably more relevant here than when sonic posted the link the other day.
July 4th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
If it came to defamation it would be for Radio NZ and Hooton to show that Hager DID steal the emails – an all but impossible task and insurance companies (who will be paying for Radio NZ’s defence) don’t go to Court for *principle*. Without doubt the insurers will require Radio NZ to settle at some point.
July 4th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
lyndon…thas’ gold
July 4th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
“..He completely embarrassed journalism..”
he also brought down don brash..
eh darling..?
hold that thought..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)