Caughey calls for Blog and Wikipedia regulation

August 14th, 2008 at 5:23 pm by David Farrar

has just been appointed by Labour to their new Transport Board. She got thrown off the last year, after serving one term. It seems she is not too happy about this, judging by her submission to the Justuce & Electoral Committee.

Advertising by way of blogging, use of or similar, are two examples where abuse may occur. does not appear to have adequate structures in place to monitor and control abuse of the system.

Regulation to control the type of use of the internet for political/campaigning purposes should be put in place …

Caughey also supports extending the EFA to local bodies, so there are restrictions on paid advocacy for all of local body election year.

Not content with regulating blogs, Wikipedia and spending, she also advocates regulating monitoring and assessing the media.

Aaron Bhatnagar has fun dissecting her points one at a time.

How did such a person get elected in the first place, and why in God’s name has Labour appointed someone who wants to regulate Wikipedia to a powerful transport funding board?

Tags: , , , , ,

53 Responses to “Caughey calls for Blog and Wikipedia regulation”

  1. Mike S (231 comments) says:

    She has the same qualifications as Di Yates to sit on these boards.
    Intelligence is not one of them

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Michaels (1,317 comments) says:

    I think the bigger question is…..
    How has some one from such a fine family ended up such a twit??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. djm210 (16 comments) says:

    My god! What an absolutely awful woman.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. andretti (127 comments) says:

    totally bloody unbelievable.How can someone so stupid get any votes at all, ever!.Just shows how many complete dunderheads there are out there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Grant (426 comments) says:

    She must KNOW something.
    G

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Peter (1,577 comments) says:

    Did she mention Wikipedia?

    Like this page, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Caughey

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Buggerlugs (1,609 comments) says:

    Another reason why forced sterilisation is always a good option

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. RRM (9,419 comments) says:

    An unimpressive submission to the committee – and an equally unimpressive lot of comments on here:

    Mike S: She is not intelligent
    Michaels: She is a twit
    djm: She is an awful woman
    andretti: her stupidity shows us all to be “dunderheads”
    Buggerlugs: She should be forcibly sterilised

    Is anyone capable of rationally arguing the pros and cons of someone’s proposals? Or is destroying someone’s credibility through bitchy personal attacks AND NOTHING ELSE where it’s at?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Glutaemus Maximus (2,207 comments) says:

    The biggest concern is her assumption that her inability to be re-elected, was because of some foul play by others.

    At least there is a Sinecure at the end of the Power Trip.

    Control and Monitor the Internet? Really.

    Control and Monitor the Media? Really.

    Control and Monitor Road Use? Of Yes!

    This gang of n’er do wells really need to be replaced. Not long now.

    They know that the chances of a (statistical freak) 4th term are remote

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Sushi Goblin (419 comments) says:

    Wikipedia is self regulating, always being corrected by people ini the relentless search for factual articles. That’s the whole bloody point behind it.

    As for blogs, how do you control/censor political blogs for local government elections? Could anyone enlighten me how someone under a pseudonym can be regulated?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. chrislaing (425 comments) says:

    Basically, this woman and her friends are of the camp which favours totalitarianism. Often these people are extremely left-wing, but that is not always the case.

    Essentially, she and her ilk despise freedom of speech. There is no justification for this hatred, so we must, in the absence of a credible explanation to the contrary, assume she simply hates it because she cannot control it.

    Freedom is the ultimate good. This cannot be disputed. All attempts to do so will utterly fail.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. RRM (9,419 comments) says:

    “she and her ilk despise freedom of speech.”

    You have to make a pretty big assumption just to get to that point, but whatever!

    (Hint no.1: She wants to stop X. X is one of the things my freedom of speech allows me to do. Therefore she must want to stop my freedom of speech.)

    (Hint no. 2: Google “affirming the consequent”)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. RRM (9,419 comments) says:

    It’s a pity she doesn’t offer any suggestions on how to resolve the so-called “problem” that “advertising by way of blogging, use of Wikipedia or similar” [can be used to "abuse" the system of restrictions on campaigning.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. PaulL (5,872 comments) says:

    Yeah, well, not really that exciting. On her points:

    Big spending Well, hypocritical to complain just because the shoe is on the other foot. And we’ve had the spending debate a zillion times on here in the last year – the evidence seems to suggest that spending is not sufficient on it’s own, you also need good ideas. Good ideas on their own (unless they’re brilliant ideas that the media happen to like) are also not enough on their own. Christine seemed to have neither good ideas nor spending, so I guess that could make you bitter.

    regulate blogs I think she is more pointing out that it is a loophole. One explicitly left in the EFA by Labour, and not really as big a loophole as it should be (lots of web sites are caught for no really good reason). But if you are convinced that spending is somehow unfair, then I can see how you might think that blogging and wikipedia, and the truth in general, are bad.

    monitor the media Funny, I think lots on the right would love some monitoring on whether the media are baised. I personally wish it were a bit more self regulating – when 55% of the population say they’ll vote National, you might expect the media to reflect that a bit. I suspect that may be why some segments of the media have moved back to the centre, and raised the ire of some on the left who were used to a more compliant media. The reality is that NZ is probably too small to sustain a right wing media and a left wing media with any level of quality. I doubt that there is a case that the media are too right wing – it would be funny to see an attempt to prove that. I note that there is existing monitoring of the media for bias in some areas, so this wouldn’t be a huge stretch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. RRM (9,419 comments) says:

    PaulL: I don’t really believe the media NZ swings one way or the other. Individual news readers and newspaper editors occasionally make their personal tastes clear, but we seem to hear calls that the media is biased towards the left, and calls that the media is biased towards the right, so based on that I assume the balance must be pretty good most of the time!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. big bruv (13,202 comments) says:

    “Christine Caughey has just been appointed by Labour to their new Transport Board. She got thrown off the Auckland City Council last year, after serving one term.”

    Is this the same Labour party led by Helen Klark that scoffed rather arrogantly at the suggestion that Dr Don Brash may be appointed high commissioner to London when the Nat’s with the election?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Rakaia George (313 comments) says:

    What a prize idiot. She wants to regulate blogs, outlets that readers have to make a pretty conscious decision to go and read? Still, I’m all in favour of every NZ-based blogger being forced to make a disclosure statement as comprehensive as DPF’s. (No names, no pack drill eh.)

    Mind you, I’d like to make a submission to the effect that people ought to pass a test and get a licence before we allow them to vote.. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. PaulL (5,872 comments) says:

    RRM: I thought I had dealt with that before in a discussion with you. There are reputable studies that find left wing bias in the media. There are reputable studies that find little bias in the media. I am not aware of any reputable studies that find right wing bias in the media, other than in very specific publications (that is, I am sure there are studies that show that BRW is right wing, but not really any that show the Herald or Dominion or Press are right wing).

    Your hypothesis is that if both sides are complaining we must be at a happy medium. My counter hypothesis (which I argue is just as likely as yours) is that the media are generally left wing, and the right have generally complained about that. In recent times the media have read the writing on the wall, and moved back towards the middle – pointing out the hypocrisy and general decaying nature of our current government (and really, not to do so would be pretty blatant). Labour have been so used to a compliant media that they are getting excited about it – it doesn’t show that the media are centre, merely that Labour are so out of touch with the population that even our left wing media are forced to acknowledge it.

    Care to explain why my explanation is wrong and yours right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. andretti (127 comments) says:

    RPM
    Im sorry but I think the woman is a complete bloody fruit loop,but thats just my opinion.See all i need is to hear/read/see and then come to a opinion,easy really.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. The Silent Majority (82 comments) says:

    She IS a fruit loop. Communist, anti-freedom, anti-business, anti progress, anti roads, unintelligent idiot! BTW, whenever anyone “not left wing” sees left wing media bias on a consistent basis, we just stop buying from them or reading them, we don’t try to control or censor them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. stayathomemum (140 comments) says:

    It is scary a person with thoughts like this is in a position of authority.
    Regarding forcible control of media and blogs – if your policies are great, surely on average the media and blogs would be singing your praises, and why try to stop them? And if opposition to your policies is so poorly judged and incorrrect, surely the media and blogs would be rubbishing that, and once again why try to stop them?
    You try to stop them because your policies are rubbish, and the opposition to them is correct – that’s why !
    I bet she cheated at monopoly as a child.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. francis (712 comments) says:

    Well, it goes back to Gutenberg, doesn’t it. The powers that be always imagine that critical thought is the product of the method of dissemination.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    Control, regulate, censor!

    The matting cry of double breasted red crested socialist if I’m not mistaken.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,810 comments) says:

    How shameful of Labour to be this corrupt. They are definitely showing all the signs of knowing they are out on their ass this 8 November. That time can’t come soon enough.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Lou (43 comments) says:

    What sort of an echo chamber must people like Caughey live in, to not understand that trying to silence political speech is, quite simply, evil?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,810 comments) says:

    Lou says at 10.59 am:

    trying to silence political speech is, quite simply, evil

    Apt words today.

    Christine Caughey must have a communicable disease because the censorship bug is out in the wild and spreading. ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. expat (4,048 comments) says:

    Your page is marked David, Hulun and Mikhael are gunning for ya. ;)

    Caughey is a complete ignoramus, but thats not news.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,810 comments) says:

    expat says at 2:32 am

    Your page is marked David, Hulun and Mikhael are gunning for ya.

    Or Hulun and Mikhael might just appoint David as New Zealand’s next chief censor.

    I am being serial!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. expat (4,048 comments) says:

    Mmm, there are certain things you don’t fuck with though. Births, Deaths and Marriages, yes?, IMHO, and obviously Davids opinion as well.

    But where were we?

    Ah yes, CC, freakin retarded inbred Jemima.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. bobux (349 comments) says:

    RRM

    Glad your 6.32 submission finds her submission ‘unimpressive’.

    How about giving us your opinion on why a failed one-term councillor with controlling tendencies and a poor grasp of logic is being appointed to a Board responsible for spending hundreds of millions of dollars?

    a)Her incisive intelligence?

    b)Her vast knowledge of infrastructure planning?

    c)Her ability to consult widely in the community?

    d)Her connections with whoever it is that makes the appointments

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. getstaffed (9,189 comments) says:

    How many boards are suffering with this type of incompetence while the taxpayer watches their money wasted?

    I’d like to see a National-led government identify 20 top-priority boards and open up all positions for re-appointment, using clearly defined selection skill and capability-focused criteria, along with impartial appointment panel(s).

    RRM – I’m with bobux on this. Care to enlighten us about her obvious suitability? (‘cos it’s not obvious to me…)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. peterwn (3,140 comments) says:

    It is very interesting to note that while Murray McCully (Nat MP for East Coast Bays) slammed the various Labour appointments to the new Transport Agency Board, Murray made NO criticism of Christine’s appointment. See:

    http://www.mccully.co.nz/ (Follow Mccully.co tab and select newsletter 2 weeks ago).

    This means that there is not universal condemnation of her appointment, as Aaron and others would like to think.

    As far as I can see, Aaron’s only contribution to has ACC election campaign last year was a ‘knock Christine’ platform. I dod not see anywhere what he planned to do himself if elected. His blog seems to me to be full of everything under the sun except his contributions to Council so far. It is also intreresting to note that no one has left comments on Aaron’s blog (or if they did Aaron was to ‘precious’ to allow them through his moderation).

    It is also worth noting that Aaron and co ‘stole’ Action Hobson’s web site and filled it up with anti Christine propaganda. If Action Hobson took legal action, they would have got it back, but it would have probably been too late.

    IMO Aaron is luvky not to be facing defamation action over some of his comments – he is saved by thje Lange v Atkinson decision.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Sushi Goblin (419 comments) says:

    Peterwn, in fact Caughey did come under official National Party criticism for her appointment – from Transport spokesman Maurice Williamson, who I would have thought would carry more clout on transport related appointments than the weekly musings of Murray McCully.

    But let’s get back on topic. Tell me Peterwn, do you believe in censorship of political commentary on the internet like Christine Caughey does?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. peterwn (3,140 comments) says:

    Sushi – yes, so he did, but it is still highly significant that Murray, who is also a high ranking National MP remained silent on her appointment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Sushi Goblin (419 comments) says:

    Peterwn – McCully can’t comment on everything. He’s good, but not perfect. You could ask him to venture an opinion if it means that much to you.

    Speaking of opinion, I note you didn’t express one yourself on political censorship of the internet. So I’ll ask you again to make sure we get back on topic – do you believe in censorship of political commentary on the internet like Christine Caughey does?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Ross Miller (1,659 comments) says:

    Goes to show once again that there is really no difference between politicians of the extreme left and extreme right. Both are intolerant of other opinions; both want to control the media; both want to control our lives …. and no dissent allowed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. PhilBest (5,117 comments) says:

    Agree with “chrislaing” (look forward to more from him) and PaulL. This is typical of the Left, look what they’re trying to do in the USA. Not content with having most of the MSM on their side, they whinge about blogs and talk radio, and try and introduce controls under the label of “Fairness Doctrine”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. PhilBest (5,117 comments) says:

    Ross Miller, those categories of “extreme left” and “extreme right” simply do not work when it comes to the concept of freedom.
    The “extreme right” cannot be Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman AND Adolf Hitler and Francesco Franco.

    These categories are really a ploy of the totalitarian Left, to try and make it look as though totalitarianism is normal. In reality, Hitler and Stalin SHARE the SAME end of the scale, not opposite ends of it. What all these people really, really fear, is the Ayn Rand/Milton Friedman concept, FREEDOM, ever getting any political traction, so they bury it from view by leaving it out of the debate altogether and sucking the ignorant majority into thinking that the alternative to Left wing totalitarianism, is “Right wing” totalitarianism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    PaulL, you might’ve mentioned the media bias thing to me, not RRM.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Ross Miller (1,659 comments) says:

    PhilBest … I would not label Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman as of the “estreme right” … right perhaps but not extreme and certainly to my knowledge they have not advocated the limiting/shutting down of basic freedoms.

    A certainly agree that Hilter and Stalin and their acolytes at both ends of the political spectrum share the same goals and Christine Caughley, wittingly or unwittingly can fairly be accused of singing from their songbook.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Hitler was a socialist anyway…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Wanderer (30 comments) says:

    This could be exactly the reason Georgina Beyer is jumping up and down about not being given a position on a board or a directorship, considering that both of them seems to be deviod of the required skills for the position given/demanded.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. PhilBest (5,117 comments) says:

    Yeah, but Ross Miller, where can you fit Ayn Rand ANYWHERE on a spectrum that has totalitarianism at both ends? I’d rather a spectrum that has freedom (Ayn Rand) at one end and totalitarianism (Hitler, Stalin) at the other. Can you see why the dominant Left would be so scared of a spectrum like that being the commonly understood one?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Sushi Goblin (419 comments) says:

    Peterwn, are you there? I’d still love to know if you believe in censorship of political commentary on the internet like Christine Caughey does?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. NZD.JPY (130 comments) says:

    summoning rogernome………are you there rogernome………I can sense you………we need you to come back and harp on about your political compass and how it’s 2 dimensional………as long as you don’t get on your other hobby horse that unions increase our wages………sorry for contributing to a tangent here folks………

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. peterwn (3,140 comments) says:

    Sushi
    Yes, I am still here. I will answer your question like this. It is a Kiwi tradition to give people a fair go. For this reason the person who did these secret recordings at the Nats conference was seriously frowned on and the egg has stuck to Labour’s face. If you look at Aaron’s blogs, writings, etc can you really say that he has given Christine and Action Hobson a typical Kiwi fair go? As far as I can see he ran for Council on a platform of of ‘running down’ Christine and Action Hobson and had no policy planks of his own. I cannot discern from his blog what contribution he has actually made to Council, it seems to be a commentary on other matters, especially criticising Christine’s recent appointment o the Transport Agency. As far as I can see, it seems to be his top priority into gaoading the Nats into giving her the heave-ho ASAP if they win the election.

    Given this background it is perhaps not surprising that Christine out of sheer frustration advocated limitations on internet ‘publications’ in a similar manner as for more traditional media.

    Turning to Wikipedia – I do not advocate ‘censorship’ of this but I do support the measures the Wikipedia organisation are taking to ensure that it is not being used as a vehile for smearing people – it is most probable that such moves would meet her concerns. Hence the ‘spirit’ of her submission on this was fully justified.

    As for blogs, this is harder to answer. Aaron obviously believes in censorship of blog comments – he ‘moderates’ the comments made to his blog and it is interesting to note that there are NIL comments on any recent subjects. I would not be too surprised that if someone set up an Aaron-bashing blog, then he would soon start squealing like a stuck pig and would be looking for any means to destroy the perpretrators. Thus one could argue that Aaron would be an avid supporter of blog censorship.

    It is thus easy to see why politicians are tempted to advocate internet censorship and this can of course lead to censorship that extends well beyond the likes of kiddie porn.

    Perhaps in lieu of censorship, one needs to fight fire with fire on the internet, something which would be abhorrant to nice people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Sushi Goblin (419 comments) says:

    Peterwn, thanks for answering. You’ve told me a lot more than you thought you did.

    Firstly, a right to a fair go means doesn’t mean politicians should somehow have legislation passed to prevent criticism of themselves. The reason why Caughey didn’t get more than one term on the council, which I presume is the ultimate fair go she was wanting, was because voters didn’t think she deserved another term. Terribly sad for her, but that’s democracy. It’s hard to believe blog comments somehow undid her.

    But it is utterly disgusting that Caughey should seek revenge afterwards by punishing all bloggers up through forcing censorship on them because she didn’t like being criticised.

    I’ve had a look at Bhatnagar’s blog, and contrary to your assertion, there are comments being made. Evidently Bhatnagar allows pseudonyms to post as well, which puts him in the same category as Kiwiblog, who also moderates (though David Farrar only does this in rare circumstances). But even if there were no comments, so what? It’s his blog, he can choose whatever set up he wants. Others can do whatever they want on their own blogs, or write letters into the paper, or whatever tickles their fancy when it comes to having their say on their issues. Again, that’s democracy. If someone should start a letter writing campaign in on a certain issues that criticised Caughey, should the newspaper be censored as well?

    Good grief, where would it end?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. peterwn (3,140 comments) says:

    Hi Shshi Goblin

    You obviously dod not read my posting too carefully at all.

    I was at pains to point out that her submissions appared to be very much out of fruatration at the constant defamation (from which Aaron is protected by virtue of the Lange v Atkinson case), slurs, pervarications etc which she has hed to put up with over the last four years. The submission seemed to be out of total frustration at the treatment Aaron was dishing out, and should be read in that context. As it is, she was completely ‘spot-on’ with the Wikipedia aspect in spirit since the Wikipedia people have now moved to stop it being abused by the likes of Aaron and his mates. This is even if she was being somewhat unrealistic in expecting Parliament to do something about it.

    As far as the comparison with newspapers is concerned, it was quite apparent that what Christine had in mind is that internet as a media should be subject to similar regimes as the print and broadcast media are in NZ. If a letter writing campaign or talkback goes over the top, then these media are held accountable to the appropriate ‘standards’ authorities. Thus I will throw the challenge right in your lap – why should not Kiwis blogging etc on political matters leading up to elections be subject to a similar ‘control’ as NZ print and broadcast media? Yet you and Aaron twist this to mean censorship with all the connotations that the word has. Is it ‘censorship’ to rid Wikipedia of trash which has become a serious issue. I will concede that with internet technology, the genii is well and truly out of the bottle and this is possibly something that Christine has not appreciated. I personally do not favour state censorship of internet material Chinese style and I very much doubt that Christine would, despite yours and Aaron’s shrill comments otherwise.

    As far as Aaron’s blogs are concerned – I now appreciate that he runs two of them and one has a handful of comments for each item, but I was looking at the other (depicting the Museum frontage) and that one has zilch comments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Sushi Goblin (419 comments) says:

    Peterwn, you appear to have confused a blog with a website site that links to a blog. Websites don’t usually have comments. Blogs almost certainly do. You clearly are not someone who should be taken seriously on internet matters.

    On the matter of the internet and freedom of speech, if you are advocating any kind of censorship for the internet, you also have no idea how the internet works.

    I think you need to go back to school to learn how the net works before making any more comments made in ignorance.

    On that basis, I’m a bit dubious about your assertions of Lange-Atkinson somehow permitting defamation of Caughey. It’s far more likely Caughey was accurately described in whatever context, and that Caughey couldn’t sue because it was the truth. I certainly wouldn’t trust ANY legal advice you’re giving with your ignorance that you’ve just shown.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Glutaemus Maximus (2,207 comments) says:

    peterwn,

    You are an apologist for a rubbish representative of the people.

    Censor the Internet? What a twat.

    You talk about standards, but when your paymasters policies are devious and rank. The simple fact is that you can’t abide review and sensible comment.

    Go and get a proper job!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Aaron Bhatnagar (43 comments) says:

    This is all very amusing. Sushi Goblin is right and Peterwn is ignorant, so permit me to put a few things to rest:

    1. Caughey and Action Hobson were always accurately described as promise-breakers on rates and voting conservatively. I have seen Peterwn’s statements elsewhere on Kiwiblog that C&R comments on the Digital Earth saga were supposedly defamatory and dealt with them there. No matter how Peterwn spins it, Caughey and Simpson came under two weeks worth of media scrutiny over their alleged poor judgment, and tellingly, Simpson was criticised by the council CEO (Herald on Sunday 10 December 2006).

    2. I welcome comments at http://aucklandblog.blogspot.com. People can comment under registered pseudonyms or the OpenID system if they desire (just like Kiwiblog), though I do moderate comments for offensiveness (like most other blogs). I have a “holding pen” system for comments because of what happened in the 2005 celebrity drug drama when anonymous people broke suppression orders on my old blog.

    3. My personal website – http://www.bhatnagar.co.nz is NOT a blog. That’s why it doesn’t have comments, because it isn’t a forum for Auckland current affairs. It’s there for people to find out biographical information, some personal beliefs plus contact details.

    4. My former opponents needs to be a little more consistent on whether my blogging is bad or not, because Action Hobson put out a press release prior to the 2007 election where they welcomed me into the race as a youth candidate who blogged.

    Proposing financial and free speech restrictions even WORSE than the Electoral Finance Act shows both how bitter in defeat my opponents were, and how left-wing their political instincts really are. As I said on my blog the other day, Caughey can invent any reason she likes why she lost, but until she recognises she and her Action Hobson mates made a hash of their term, betrayed their promises and fiscally hurt people, they won’t be any wiser. That’s why Action Hobson deserved their election result in 2007.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. peterwn (3,140 comments) says:

    ***Sushi and Aaron

    My alleged ‘ignorance’ of the differences between a web site and a blog – there is a simple explanation – Aaron’s web site points to individual items on his blog to which one is invited to make comments. Hence it appears at first sight that Aaron’s web site is also a blog of some sort. When I looked at some of these blog items a while back I noted that there were no comments made, and on this basis drew the incorrect conclusion that nil comments were being made. A few are made but nowhere near the vibrancy of Kiwiblog. DPF in general does not moderate Kiwiblog comments whereas Aaron seems to have so little faith in human nature that he insists on moderating everything, so many prospective commenters must surely say ‘blow this for a joke’ and move on.

    It seems that Aaron is quite happy to ‘steal’ Action Hobson’s web site and fill it up with smear, but does not to risk someone messing up his pristine blog.

    ***Sushi

    1. I am perfectly aware of the difference vbetween a blog and a web site. I just cannot think how you drew such a conclusion from my comments.

    2.”if you are advocating any kind of censorship for the internet, you also have no idea how the internet works”.
    It all depends how broadly you define ‘censorship’. Are measures being taken by Wikipedia to deal with abusive and defamatory entries and editings (as Aaron and / or his cronies appear to have done with respect for an entry for Christine – thus leading to one leg of her submission) ‘censorship’. I am not ‘advocating’ censorship of the internet by the NZ Government but was merely pointing out that Christine’s motivation most probably be to put the internet on an equal basis to the various controls that exist on other mass media in New Zealand. This is a far cry from ‘heavy handed’ censorship. In this regard while she could be criticised for advocating something that would be an exercise in futility, it is stretching things to try and argue that she is advocating Communist Chinese style censorship of the internet. But of course Aaron seems to want to drag her over the coals at every possible opportunity.

    3. You have expressed some opinions as to my internet and other general knowledge with which Aaron seems to concur. I can only say you are thinking what you would like to think.

    ***Glutaemus Maximus

    Are you another crony of Aaron?

    You have got anything useful to say, so you just smear me instead.

    ***Aaron Bhatnagar

    1. “alleged poor judgment” Was this your judgment (with respect to Christine, not concerned with Mr Simpson), the Auditor General’s judgment or some one else’s judgment. Or did the claim of ‘alleged poor judgment’ just fall off the back of a truck? You said if claims were false why did she not sue – this is no longer a valid test in the political arena since the Lange v Atkinson decision.

    2 and 3 – already commented on.

    4. Perhaps there is some misunderstanding of terminology here. Perhaps by ‘blog’ Christine also had in mind the Action Hobson site name that you renewed and then filled up with criticism and slur.

    Your last paragraph is grand sounding stuff but does not distract from the fact that you by your own admission ‘opened up’ on Christine and Action Hobson almost immediately after the 2004 election and kept going ever since. As far as I can see, your only election plank was to smear Action Hobson rather than offer any positive initiatives to bring to the Council table.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Sushi Goblin (419 comments) says:

    I see, so its all ok because Caughey doesn’t know the difference between a blog and a website, but wants to censor blogs anyway?

    I got the impression you didn’t know either because you clearly confused Bhatnagar’s website with his blog. It’s pretty obvious his website isn’t his blog because he’s got a bloody great link to his actual blogsite. The RSS feed he has on his page also links to his blog. They’re pretty big clues that you don’t know what you’re talking about. That you think the internet can somehow be censored, especially for political thought, also suggests you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Why do you call Bhatnagar’s descriptions of his opponents as “smears? But wasn’t he telling the truth that Caughey and her mates pushed up rates and sucked up to the left once elected? If so, he was probably honour bound to point those facts out to voters. What was he supposed to do in your books – forgive them publicly?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.