Kim’s little helpers

February 13th, 2014 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

Has been fascinating to look at the nexus between certain MPs and . We now know some MPs have had multiple meetings with him at his mansion (lesser mortals visit MPs in their offices, but for Dotcom they flock to his mansion), and the same MPs have asked multiple questions about his case in Parliament. And again at least one of those MPs is vowing to fight his extradition – even if the NZ Courts find he should be extradited. And finally, we have learnt that Dotcom will wind up his political party during the election campaign and endorse one or more other parties – no doubt those who have been helping him so much.

So who have been Kim’s little helpers. I’ve searched the parliamentary database and these MPs have asked multiple questions on his behalf or about his case.

  • Trevor Mallard – 132 questions (128 written, 4 oral)
  • Winston Peters – 82 questions (71 written, 11 oral)
  • David Shearer – 36 questions (22 written, 14 oral)
  • Grant Robertson – 17 questions (15 oral, 2 written)
  • Russel Norman – 13 questions (7 written, 6 oral)

We know that Mallard has met with Dotcom, Peters has been to his mansion three times and Norman at least twice. Norman can’t recall whose idea the meetings were.

Audrey Young has written on how Peters is back to his Owen Glenn tricks and refusing to answer questions about his taxpayer funded trips to talk to Dotcom. Many a wag has suggested he should wave the NO sign up when asked if Dotcom has donated to his party or him.

also writes on the issue:

It is bad enough that the are naive enough to sign up to the fan club which accords Kim Dotcom the folk hero status he clearly craves, but scarcely deserves as some modern-day Robin Hood of cyberspace.

Much worse, however, is that it now turns out that party is blithely willing to play politics with New Zealand’s courts, the country’s extradition laws and its extradition treaty with the United States.

Were John Key to allow some right-wing businessman facing extradition to stay in New Zealand in exchange for him abandoning his plans to establish a political party which might drain votes off National, then the Greens would be climbing on their high horses at break-neck speed and leading the charge in slamming the Prime Minister in no uncertain terms. And rightly so.

Indeed.

By appearing to countenance such a massive conflict of interest through political interference in Dotcom’s potential ejection from New Zealand, Norman has instantly disqualified his party from having any ministerial posts in a coalition with Labour which involve responsibility for the extradition process.

In fact, Norman has probably disqualified his party from having any role in the Justice portfolio full stop.

That’s a win for New Zealand!

Tags: , , , , ,

106 Responses to “Kim’s little helpers”

  1. Sofia (830 comments) says:

    Whale Oil – The opposition parties are donkey deep in working for or on behalf of Kim Dotcom. They need to come clean about their involvement and the details of their dodgy back-room dealings.
    Other politicians have been to the mansion…I have warned previously that I will name them, best they come forward or I will continue to drip feed names.
    As I said there is a disturbance in the force…the truth about Kim Dotcom will be told and as I have said before careers are going to be wrecked.

    It shows my age, but what a fucking shame George Wilder never stood for Parliament

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. davidp (3,558 comments) says:

    Thats a total of 280 questions that the Left asked in order to run interference for their patron. I wonder what that works out to be per dollar? I suppose it is possible that (like Bradbury) they’re working for a new Apple Mac. But I’d like to think that democracy and the integrity of our parliament was worth more than that.

    Labour and the Greens: Didn’t want to sell Mighty River. Didn’t want to sell Meridian. Were happy to sell parliament and the integrity of the justice system.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Pete George (23,345 comments) says:

    Whale has already drip fed Jacinda Ardern’s and Clare Curran’s names. Ardern seems ok. Curran hasn’t denied visiting the mansion (WO says twice plus many phone calls).

    It raises a question about whether Curran saw Dotcom as more than a little helper if Labour throws her overboard as has been rumoured.

    Clare Curran, Kim Dotcom and the Internet Party

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. lazza (370 comments) says:

    More and more Wussell (with his recent admission that he would give Dotcom a break if extradition was in question) exhibits some worrying personal tendencies.

    1. Poor judgement clouded by personal predjudice

    2. Anti anything American

    3. Jealousy of those on higher incomes

    3. Naivete, churlishness and infantile reactions to counter opinions to his own… just watch him at question time.

    Add all that to the Green’s holier than thou messaniac policies … result Froot Loops.

    Look out Cunners you are about to get fitted … with a millstone!

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Pete George (23,345 comments) says:

    Does anyone know if OIA requests are publicly notified?

    It’s been pretty much confirmed that Winston Peters’ little helper (his Director of Operations) used a false Fred Dagg name (Bruce Bayliss) in OIA requests.

    What information was he seeking? And why did NZ First not want to be associated with the requests?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. itstricky (1,699 comments) says:

    Please provide detail of how you came across you stats. Wadda you do search for ‘dotcom’ in the question? Well of course it’s all opposition parties – There was a botched operation – of course they will pull the Government up and start asking questions. Give your readers some credit, they can think for themselves.

    Incidentally – you seem to have forgotten to mention John Banks somewhere? Or is that all just ancient history that we should forget about now?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 25 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Monty (966 comments) says:

    It has long been suspected that Curren and mallard are very cosy. Has Curren tried to be a little smart by half and got her bitch mallard to ask the questions to get some distance?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Pete George (23,345 comments) says:

    John Banks’ donation hiccup was before he was elected back into Parliament. Once he returned as an MP Dotcom asked him for a favour and Banks refused. His integrity seems to be at far less risk than Norman’s or Peters’.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. anticorruptionnz (202 comments) says:

    and then there are those of us who cant even get an MP to listen about corruption happening in government departments and the deliberate cover ups.

    shows its not about people ethics morals is about $$$$$

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Nigel Kearney (919 comments) says:

    I don’t think the Greens have anything to worry about. We learned from the two Obama wins that when it is the left getting most of the money, the effect of private spending on election campaigns immediately ceases to be an issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Fentex (909 comments) says:

    these MPs have asked multiple questions on his behalf or about his case.

    This is an excellent example of propaganda; an elegant conflation of people asking awkward questions of a government ignoring and abusing civil liberties with the possibly self serving and corrupted.

    Putting the idea that people who ask questions about an illegal assault, search and destruction of property by our police at foreign bidding are also people who merely do the bidding of a questionable character into peoples minds in a simple sentence.

    Very impressive work.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. queenstfarmer (755 comments) says:

    It is good to see the media finally starting to look into what seem like increasingly dodgy dealings between Dotcom and the Greens, Winston and Labour.

    Imagine the media frenzy if the situation were reversed, i.e. National MPs having secret meetings with a foreign, multi-millionaire, convicted fraudster businessman facing serious criminal charges, trying to buy his way out of facing justice by using his fortune to influence the election, including buying off journalists, proposing to bribe voters, setting up a sham political party to skew votes, etc etc.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Chris2 (768 comments) says:

    itstricky – fair points, but Dotcom is not even a NZ citizen (is he even a taxpayer?) and MP’s are falling over themselves to support him.

    The average NZ citizen NEVER gets this level of support from MP’s (think of Susan Couch a victim almost killed in the Mt Wellington RSA murders and her lonely fight for compensation). So what is so special about Dotcom?

    I’ll tell – it’s money. If Dotcom was not a billionaire no MP would give him the time of day. And that is what is so disgusting about the opposition MP’s trooping up to his “mansion” because he is rich.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Ed Snack (1,801 comments) says:

    Fentex has a good point, at least some questions about the Dotcom case are very easily justified. The original raid, put on at the behest of US Moneymen via the FBI was a truly disgusting cowboy exercise, armed police flying in by helicopter, for alleged copyright violations ??!!? WTF. I would only hope that Key himself was unaware of the dealings going on before the raid, otherwise I’d have to say that the massive corruption that is yet to be rooted out lies in the Police who authorized/set up the original raid and in the government who OK’d it.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. queenstfarmer (755 comments) says:

    @Fentex: a (fairly transparent) example of propaganda from you there. Putting the idea that asking questions about why Labour, the Greens and Winston seem so eager to do the bidding of a convicted foreign fraudster is somehow illegitimate.

    Unimpressive work.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. questions (186 comments) says:

    Why are you lot (who else does Eady feed?) pushing so hard on this at the moment?

    Key about to delt another serve on it?

    Can you explain what is wrong with meeting him? he is as close to a political prisoner as there is in NZ!

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 25 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Lindsay Addie (1,182 comments) says:

    I think the political strategies at play are interesting.

    National want to fight the election based on their economic record in turning the economy around. The opposition parties simply cannot hope to win the election by confronting this issue head on. For heaven’s sake Cunnliffe cannot even explain important policies succinctly. I’m still waiting for Norman and Peters to say something meaningful about economic policies.

    So instead they’re trying to outflank the Nats by banging on about other fringe issues such as KimDotCom. Unless they can pin something nasty on Key regarding this issue they’re on a loser.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. greenjacket (437 comments) says:

    We have a situation where Russell Norman visits KimCotcom, adopts policies to protect him from extradition, asks questions in parliament that assist the KimDotcom case, in a case for a guy who is known to shower money to potential supporters. This smells.
    .
    Most reasonably ept people (including most MPs I know) who go to an important or potentially sensitive meeting, will write up minutes or keep notes on the file of it.
    So either: (a) Russell Norman does not keep minutes or notes of important meetings, which suggests an incredible level of incompetence; or (b) Russell Norman is not being open about the meetings.
    Or, to put it crudely, Russell Norman is either a fool or he is lying.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. kowtow (7,953 comments) says:

    Who let him in in the first place?

    The whole political establishment is complicit.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. doggone7 (756 comments) says:

    The headline continues the hysteria around Dotcom and could be called witless except it is deliberate.

    Criticising or condemning MPs for asked multiple questions ‘on his behalf or about his case’ is simply pathetic. Has Dotcom given them the questions to ask on ‘his behalf’ ? I’ve seen numerous questions ‘about the case’ which sought to ascertain the extent of NZ agencies’ involvement with Dotcom. So that suggests the MPs are in the pocket of Dotcom? Is what they are doing not expected of opposition members?

    The hysteria is born of political panic.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. queenstfarmer (755 comments) says:

    “he is as close to a political prisoner as there is in NZ”

    He’s not a prisoner at all. He’s free to leave any time he wants. I’ll get his passport back for him.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Pete George (23,345 comments) says:

    Chris2 – yes, money, but because they think that his money will get them power. The aim is power.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Joanne (177 comments) says:

    This is so bad.

    They thrashed John Banks and yet the sanctimonious little twats will sell their souls to get into power. They should be ashamed of themselves, sending politicians reputation even further the food chain. Coarctation that – the opposite’s reputation.

    And who really gives a sh## about Dotcom. He has bought his way into everything.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. BeaB (2,084 comments) says:

    Dirty deals by dodgy politicians who would sell their grandmothers for a headline, not to mention a pocket full of cash.

    Aussie Norman has finally admitted to some of his visits – are they all the meetings he and members of his party have had with this odious millionaire?

    It is time Mallard and Curran come clean about their involvement and meetings with him.
    What about other members of the Labour Party? What about phone calls, texts etc?

    As for Winston – when have we ever been able to believe a word he says?

    This lot deserve each other – venal, shady behaviour bordering on corrupt and definitely self-serving, money-grubbing and power-hungry.

    Imagine being bought by a German tub of lard!

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. queenstfarmer (755 comments) says:

    @kowtow: “Who let him in in the first place?”

    Indeed. I would have thought that his serious criminal convictions (not to mention, highly dubious business dealings elsewhere) should have kept him out.

    But then again, it’s hard to underestimate the incompetence of govt agencies.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. metcalph (1,410 comments) says:

    Criticising or condemning MPs for asked multiple questions ‘on his behalf or about his case’ is simply pathetic.

    Asking parliamentary questions without declaring an interest is in fact corrupt behaviour. MPs should be careful even to avoid being seen to be corrupt (as opposed to actually being corrupt)

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Graeme Edgeler (3,277 comments) says:

    Courts never find that someone should be extradited.* That’s not the role they play in extradition. You should really stop saying it is.

    *Exceptions: we have a special system for Australia and a few other jurisdictions (the US not among them)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. queenstfarmer (755 comments) says:

    @Graeme: “Courts never find that someone should be extradited”

    They find that the extradition criteria have or have not been met. And if the criteria have been met, that is to the effect that the person should be extradited unless there is some reason in the Act or the treaty not to (or in Russell Norman’s case, because he feels like it).

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. questions (186 comments) says:

    “questions (105 comments) says:
    February 13th, 2014 at 9:42 am
    Key about to delt another serve on it?”

    Correction, having checked KDC’s twitter feed I see why you are all spinning so hard on this.

    Damning for Key.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. metcalph (1,410 comments) says:

    We have a special system for Australia and a few other jurisdictions (the US not among them)

    Be it far from me to correct Dotcom’s retainer, but the US is in a special system (exempted countries) in which they have to furnish a statement of record as well as an extradition warrant.

    The detail that the Minister decides on the extradition is to my mind a red herring. I’ve never heard of a NZ minister refusing to extradite someone and Russel Norman’s basis for doing wanting to do so – an illegal warrant – is utter bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    The stench of corruption is overpowering. The obese German stinks (and should be deported).

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. davidp (3,558 comments) says:

    Graeme E>Courts never find that someone should be extradited.* That’s not the role they play in extradition. You should really stop saying it is.

    Hasn’t this already been discussed, and it was found you have to go overseas to find examples where a politician has overridden the court? In which case, even though the politician actually makes “the decision”, it is the long standing practice of NZ politicians to not interfere in the process. And it was never envisaged that politicians should override the court in return for political donations or electoral favours.

    It’s like you’re claiming that the NZ Parliament doesn’t pass laws, because that is the Queen’s prerogative. Ignoring the fact that neither the Queen or the Guv have ever overridden the democratic processes of parliament.

    And shouldn’t you be noting your conflict of interest in any Dotcom or Internet Party comment thread?

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Psycho Milt (2,368 comments) says:

    The Opposition parties have asked a lot of questions about something that’s involved illegal activity by the government as well as outrageous incompetence, dubious issuing of permanent residence to someone with a criminal record, and alleged corruption by a cabinet minister? No fucking shit, Sherlock…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Pete George (23,345 comments) says:

    Some of Kim’s little helpers have been trying to counter attack today. There’s been a bunch of bunnies on Twitter trying to suggest John Key’s “accusation” that Peters visited Dotcom three times must have been through information received from the GCSB.

    Mike Smith does likewise at The Standard.

    Mindless questions

    The question I’d like the media to ask is “Where did John Key get his information that Winston visited DotCom three times?” Most likely source it seems to me is the GCSB. I think Winston may have a point about his right to privacy.

    The spies have always laced their briefings to the Prime Minister with political titbits, and now that Key has his old friend Ian Fletcher in the job, not to mention pressure from his golfing partner in Hawaii, I’d say its a reasonable question.

    Key knows the gallery can always be side-tracked into their favourite, and utterly fruitless, game of Winston-bashing, as evidenced by this pointless piece of puffery from Audrey Young. They would do the rest of us a better service if they also questioned Key on his sources.

    I don’t know if Mike still works in the Labour leader’s office, but he should tell Robertson, Mallard, Cunliffe et al that they should consult with media themselves – Winston’s visits first went public in the Herald last Friday. Key didn’t talk about them until yesterday.

    More in Winston Peters and Kim Dotcom

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. RRM (9,667 comments) says:

    Why does “mansion” have to be mentioned, every time chez Dotcom is in the news?

    It’s tacky.

    We are already well aware it’s a big house.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. davidp (3,558 comments) says:

    RRM>Why does “mansion” have to be mentioned, every time chez Dotcom is in the news?

    Two reasons:

    1. This is a story about a wealthy criminal attempting to purchase political favours. Noting that he is a big spender in other areas of his life adds context.

    2. It addresses the hypocrisy of the Greens, who are infavour of small energy-efficient houses for the rest of us. But don’t mind that their patron has a giant energy-wasting home, likes racing his car at high speed on NZ rural roads, and gets around in a helicopter.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. lazza (370 comments) says:

    RRM Dohhh!!! … on the “Mansion” bit

    man·sion
    noun \ˈman(t)-shən\ : a large and impressive house : the large house of a wealthy person

    So which part of “Mansion” do you not get?

    If we had said that Winnie went calling on Dotcom at the “Big House” (as you advised) … would that be at Parrie? … the Casino maybe … some other … weally weally Big House?

    Go figger. (& Get a Life?).

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. lolitasbrother (589 comments) says:

    haha dudes it is all good, do you really think New Zealanders will vote for a charlatan German.
    Try visiting Orcon and see the scam. Which of us will remove this scum from our Country

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. davidp (3,558 comments) says:

    Oh, and a third reason:

    3. The Left are talking about inequality a lot. However, a rich man harmed by minor procedural issues in the execution of a search warrant warrants 280 parliamentary questions, while a poor person in a similar situation is ignored by Labour, the Greens, and NZ First. What does that say about equality?

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. RRM (9,667 comments) says:

    Lazza – how about just “at his home” ??

    Sorry I won’t bother you again with matters like tact and good taste that you are clearly not concerned with.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. davidp (3,558 comments) says:

    I’ll also add:

    4. Peters asked a number of parliamentary questions last year about whether John Key had heard of Dotcom before the raid made the news. Peters’ point seemed to be that Key must have heard of Dotcom because Dotcom lives in a big ostentatious home.

    5. Russel Norman has never visited me at my home, which is an apartment. I suspect that if I lived in a mansion, then I’d be able to summon Norman at will.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Keeping Stock (10,181 comments) says:

    Is “questions” Hey Clint in disguise? He seems to be the only one peddling the line that this is all a National Party conspiracy, which is daft. After all, how could the National Party possibly get Russel Norman, Winston Peters and Clare Curran all to have secret meetings with Dotcom at his Coatesville house (is that better RRM?)?

    My take on it is that the abovenamed’s political instincts deserted them when Dotcom offered them the PM’s head on a platter, all of them failing to anticipate that there would be strings attached. It is especially bad for Norman and Peters who went gangbusters after John Banks.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Keeping Stock (10,181 comments) says:

    @ lazza – so does David Cunliffe’s house in Auckland’s most expensive suburb meet your definition of a mansion?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. questions (186 comments) says:

    KS, I can confirm that I am not, he is a far smarter man than me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Pete George (23,345 comments) says:

    questions – so are you Russel Norman?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. questions (186 comments) says:

    Ha, no.

    Can you lot confirm whether Key is lying though his teeth every time he mentions Kim Dotcom? or is it just most of the time?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 28 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. RRM (9,667 comments) says:

    Six years on, and still all they have is “you can’t trust John Key… he MUST be dodgy…”

    Pathetic.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. lolitasbrother (589 comments) says:

    whats the big deal dudes, who cares, maybe our Government and the PM himself made errors of judgement,
    who cares, as the PM said more people are concerned with fishing more than fatso.
    If you get tapped by the bureaus then too bad, I don’t care tap my line here, see the way we will vote and its NZ Nat Govt 2014.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. RRM (9,667 comments) says:

    Keeping stock –

    sorry! I just think it makes us look like a little backwards nation of hillbillies from bumfuck nowhere, (maybe we are?) that we can’t get over the size of his house and can’t help commenting on it. OMG have you seen the size of KIM DOTCOM’S MANSION? More pollies seen grovelling before Kim Dotcom AT HIS MANSION. Has so-and-so ever had an audience at KIM DOTCOM’S MANSION? Does the Member deny that he visited KIM DOTCOM’S MANSION?

    It’s embarassing.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. lolitasbrother (589 comments) says:

    davidp (3,169 comments) says:
    quote
    The Left are talking about inequality a lot. However, a rich man harmed by minor procedural issues in the execution of a search warrant warrants 280 parliamentary questions, while a poor person in a similar situation is ignored by Labour, the Greens, and NZ First. What does that say about equality?
    unquote

    yes that is right davidp.
    I wish we could just get on with our Country, feel a pride, and work for the future

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Dave_1924 (101 comments) says:

    Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear……. Time for the parties other than National to stand up, say how often they have meet KDC, what they discussed and then forswear taking any donations financial or otherwise from him. The Exclusive Brother Kim Dotcom is a puppet master and no doubts about it….. The sooner he wings his way to the US to PROVE false the allegations he ripped anyone off the better …..

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. lazza (370 comments) says:

    Mansions (Yawn) … here you go.

    John 14:2 (King James Version)

    King James Version (KJV)

    “In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you”.

    That def’n fits Cunners AND JK right?

    Winnie NOT, he sleeps on the sofa at his latest love interests pad, Wusssel resides in an Eco Hooch made of recycled bottle tops and spray free straw and Hone spends most of his time slumped in a Koru lounge recliner closest to the free sammies.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. alwyn (402 comments) says:

    @RRM at 10.22am and 11.05am

    “We are already aware it’s a big house”.

    I am on your side on this. I would far rather be able to talk about Kim Dotcom being in “a big house” rather than being in a mansion.
    You are aware, I imagine, that the term “a big house” is a slang term for a prison aren’t you?
    Seems a very appropriate term, and place, for Dotcom’s abode.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Viking2 (11,281 comments) says:

    Pete George (20,997 comments) says:
    February 13th, 2014 at 9:15 am

    Whale has already drip fed Jacinda Ardern’s and Clare Curran’s names. Ardern seems ok. Curran hasn’t denied visiting the mansion (WO says twice plus many phone calls).

    It raises a question about whether Curran saw Dotcom as more than a little helper if Labour throws her overboard as has been rumoured.
    ===================================
    It also raises the question as to who is feeding this stuff to WO. Clearly there is spying going on and actually it would seem to me to be a gross breach of privacy.
    That is the bigger issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. flash2846 (228 comments) says:

    The search of Dot Com’s mansion wasn’t illegal is what the PM explained on Campbell Live. Why do you loser lefties always focus on lies and mistruths when attempting to prove your misguided slant? Pathetic!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Viking2 (11,281 comments) says:

    Seems to me that there is an obsession with this issue with all sorts of people who once would have spoken up on peoples rights now following the “official” line and abandoning their long espoused principles.

    Lies, damn lies and (whose) stats?

    There is clearly a concerted effort to influence public opinion (on both sides) before the court case.
    In any other circumstances a matter before the courts may not be debated in the media.
    Another principle gone.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. metcalph (1,410 comments) says:

    It also raises the question as to who is feeding this stuff to WO. Clearly there is spying going on and actually it would seem to me to be a gross breach of privacy

    Let’s see.

    Spying by GCSB. Bad Bad Bad.

    Reporting leaks by Whale Oil. Bad Bad Bad.

    Reporting by NZ Herald. A necessary part of our democratic society.

    And lastly, Reporting on visits by MPs to people on bail for serious charges are in the public interest.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. metcalph (1,410 comments) says:

    The search of Dot Com’s mansion wasn’t illegal is what the PM explained on Campbell Live.

    There’s two (or three issues) here.

    The arrest warrant for extradition is legal full stop. The manner of his arrest may have been over the top but that is not a legal matter (unless, for example, Dotcom were to have suffered serious injuries during the arrest).

    There is a valid issue regarding the broad nature of the search warrant. If the warrant was repudiated then any evidence obtained during the search would have to be suppressed in NZ courts. Things get a wee bit tricky here because the US apparently provided specific grounds for the warrant but the NZ police requested a broad warrant. So should the US courts suffer for the NZ police cockup? But as I understand it, if the search warrant was not upheld, the police could then apply for a new (correct) warrant to reobtain the evidence they had to just give back. So it’s really a red herring IMO.

    At the very worst, even if the US could not get any evidence seized in Dotcom’s mansion, they still have their own evidence which was heard by the Grand Jury and forms the basis of their extradition warrant.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. queenstfarmer (755 comments) says:

    @Viking2: “In any other circumstances a matter before the courts may not be debated in the media.”

    Tell that to Labour, the Greens and Winston who have happily breached the sub judice convention all over the place to support their mate Dotcom. The entire matter is still before the courts.

    Russell Norman has even prejudged the entire matter by declaring he will block Dotcom’s extradition no matter what, cursiously after having secret meetings with Dotcom and Dotcom agreeing to blow up his own political party – this borders on corruption to say the least.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. flash2846 (228 comments) says:

    Thanks for the clarification metcalph.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. queenstfarmer (755 comments) says:

    Good summary metcalph. Some people are getting confused by (or deliberately confusing) the various issues.

    Remember, Dotcom’s primary strategy is to delay matters long enough in the hope there is a change of government, who will then sacrifice our extradition obligations and international relations to block his extradition.

    Fortunately for Dotcom (and unfortunately for NZ), the police and GCSB have massively helped his delaying tactics by their incompetence and bungling. But, as you correctly point out, that shouldn’t derail the process.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Psycho Milt (2,368 comments) says:

    The search of Dot Com’s mansion wasn’t illegal is what the PM explained on Campbell Live.

    I think the English Language would like to have a word with you about cruel abuse of the word ‘explain.’ However, yes – the illegal surveillance is actually legal since the government retrospectively declared it legal, the illegal search and seizure was more cockup than consipiracy and the illegal handing over of evidence to the US was probably the Police, not the government. Still not exactly surprising that the Opposition’s made a meal of it in the House though, is it?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. metcalph (1,410 comments) says:

    However, yes – the illegal surveillance is actually legal since the government retrospectively declared it legal

    No, they haven’t. The GCSB surveillance of Kim Dotcom was and remains illegal. What the government retrospectively validated was the GSCB surveillance of 88 New Zealanders on the basis of a police or SIS warrant (and even there, it’s not clear that the surveillance was unlawful – it’s just that the legislation is murky enough that it needed to be clarified in order to permit the GCSB to do what Parliament intended they should do).

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. burt (8,035 comments) says:

    Kim Dotcom has tweeted that Winston didn’t answer the questions about his visit because we agreed on confidence….

    So any though that Dotcom is playing with politics in NZ can be dismissed – Politics is playing with him. Anyone who agrees on confidence with Winston is clearly insufficiently informed to play in NZ politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Pete George (23,345 comments) says:

    Dotcom has confirmed that Peters visited him but under a confidentiality agreement.

    @KimDotcom

    Winston Peters didn’t answer questions about his visit because we agreed on confidence. I released him from this confidence now. #manOFhonor

    Ask John Key how he knew about Winston Peters visiting the mansion 3 times. Only 4 people knew about it & probably Ian Fletcher at the GCSB.

    Tova O’Brien suggested that Dotcom has blown Peters’ cover. They may have agreed to waive the confidentiality agreement, or in Dotcom’s world what he decides happens.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. OneTrack (2,823 comments) says:

    “I wish we could just get on with our Country, feel a pride, and work for the future”

    Not going to happen. If the hard left win the election and the verdict goes in favour of extradition, they are going to out-of-hand overturn the verdict. Why? Because they don’t like America? Because they want to stick it to the man? Because they like free fireworks? Because they want KDC to abort his political ambitions because he might take some of their votes? All of the above?

    If this was a tin-pot banana republic we would be laughing. Maybe we are on our way to becoming one.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. OneTrack (2,823 comments) says:

    Pyscho – “the illegal search and seizure was more cockup than consipiracy and the illegal handing over of evidence to the US was probably the Police, not the government.”

    I agree. So why are Labour and the Greens dying in a ditch over this?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    I wish Armstrong would lay off whatever stimulants he’s taking so that he can write a coherent column.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. doggone7 (756 comments) says:

    ross69

    It must be fun being Armstrong. One day you’re the Sage and Oracle the next day you’re the dog. Some columns may well have been written with invisible ink the way they get ignored. To wit,

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/john-armstrong/news/article.cfm?a_id=3&objectid=11200252

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/john-armstrong/news/article.cfm?a_id=3&objectid=11198248

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Akaroa (552 comments) says:

    Hey, Lazza at 1109!

    Still chuckling at one o’clock!

    (Winnie, Wussel and Hone!)

    Thanks for injecting a bit of humour into what is turning into a “we-take-ourselves-so-seriously-about-this-oh-so-serious-matter” bore.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. burt (8,035 comments) says:

    Breaking news: Labour to buy Dotcom mansion and make it a state house for the Dotcom family.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Paulus (2,565 comments) says:

    Dotcon’s house is only rented – he does not own it (and never will).
    I think you will find that all the information of who visits and when comes from within the Press Gallery sleuths and friends, but they do not want to be seen to do it.
    In addition I suspect that the SIS and the Police are keeping an eye on FatSlob to see he does not abscond before his trial, and that his own security people are doing their job in vetting visitor entries.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. RRM (9,667 comments) says:

    I wonder how many of them were bought for $5,000 for PC and tablet upgrades?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Pete George (23,345 comments) says:

    Peters’ media release

    Three Dotcom meetings – how did Key know?

    Rt Hon Winston Peters has confirmed that he met Kim Dotcom three times in the last two years and has asked the Prime Minister to explain how he knew about the meetings.

    The meetings followed New Zealand First criticising the immigration process for Mr Dotcom and the conflicting positions taken by senior Cabinet ministers over his case.

    They also followed the armed police raid, the arrest and release of Mr Dotcom and the subsequent court case which ruled the raid unlawful.

    Mr Peters was approached by Kim Dotcom who wanted to explain his side of the story.

    The pair met first to discuss the immigration issue and then twice to discuss matters relating to the GCSB case.

    Mr Peters says nothing was asked for and nothing was offered, no taxpayers’ money was used.

    “The meetings were confidential and I agreed to keep them as such.

    “In many years of politics I have never broken a confidentiality agreement and do not intend to start doing so, despite the squawking of beltway reporters in Parliament.

    “Mr Dotcom has agreed to lift the confidentiality agreement as it is a matter of deep concern that my movements were apparently being tracked.”

    Mr Peters says National Party sources obviously knew of the three meetings and this points to information being passed to and from the top floor of the Beehive.

    “Does this mean that some New Zealand politicians are now under surveillance? Exactly when did the Prime Minister authorise someone to keep tabs on me?

    “New Zealanders should be outraged that a former Deputy Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and Opposition party leader has apparently been spied on,” says Mr Peters.

    Trying to turn defence into attack.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Keeping Stock (10,181 comments) says:

    @ RRM (11.05am) – I actually agree with you. For that reason, any post I now do about this whole fiasco will refer to “a rented house at Coatesville” :D

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. burt (8,035 comments) says:

    Peters should be under surveillance – he’s a proven liar and owes the country $158,000 !!!!! Pay it back @winstonpeters

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. DJP6-25 (1,313 comments) says:

    Wow! The pond scum left behaving like… well, pond scum. No surprises here. About as surprising as hearing a cat meow.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Pete George (23,345 comments) says:

    The Dotcom farce has reached new heights today. It looks like he has organised Peters, Norman and Labour to buy into his GCSB conspiracy, from leaders to minions. And they have done it with bells on.

    It has become a debacle of epic proportions.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. burt (8,035 comments) says:

    It has become a debacle of epic Mega proportions.

    There – fixed that for you ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. RRM (9,667 comments) says:

    kimdotcomjumpingashark.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. burt (8,035 comments) says:

    It seems it’s all about John Key … I wonder if Kim Dotcom understands that a Labour government would have done pretty much exactly the same as National did. Just like special tax breaks for Peter Jackson… Labour screamed like babies about National doing it and hoped that nobody remembered Clark did exactly the same bend over and take it from Hollywood…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    It has become a debacle of epic proportions

    Yeah nah that would be Peter Dunne fantasising about Andrea Vance and being caught with his pants round his ankles. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Tom Jackson (2,528 comments) says:

    It is good to see the media finally starting to look into what seem like increasingly dodgy dealings between Dotcom and the Greens, Winston and Labour.

    Is there any evidence of anything other than NZ politicians trying to get one over on the government by milking the political scandal of the Dotcom raid and illegal surveillance along with the sweet deals given Hollywood companies in NZ?

    If so, could you present that evidence?

    Like I said yesterday, WTF is it with you people and Kim Dotcom? Did he humiliate you at Call of Duty (he’s apparently very good)?

    Kim Dotcom derangement syndrome is rapidly spreading…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Tom Jackson (2,528 comments) says:

    Yeah nah that would be Peter Dunne fantasising about Andrea Vance and being caught with his pants round his ankles.

    Pass the eyebleach.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    John Key once again makes a schoolboy error…why on earth would he give Winston the oxygen to make such an attack?

    Then of course there’s Key’s rank hypocrisy. Remember he’s agreed to go into coalition with Peters after the election. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Tom Jackson (2,528 comments) says:

    The Dotcom farce has reached new heights today. It looks like he has organised Peters, Norman and Labour to buy into his GCSB conspiracy,

    You mean the conspiracy where they were caught illegally spying on him, and he caught them tapping his internet?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. thedavincimode (6,590 comments) says:

    I think the English Language would like to have a word with you about cruel abuse of the word ‘explain.’ However, yes – the illegal surveillance is actually legal since the government retrospectively declared it legal, the illegal search and seizure was more cockup than consipiracy and the illegal handing over of evidence to the US was probably the Police, not the government. Still not exactly surprising that the Opposition’s made a meal of it in the House though, is it?

    Minor detail Milt. You need to stay focussed on the big picture.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. davidp (3,558 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson>You mean the conspiracy where they were caught illegally spying on him, and he caught them tapping his internet?

    My understanding is that a GCSB technician used some gadget to confirm Dotcom’s phone was located inside the rented domestic premises (thanks RRM), and passed the information directly to the police. That hardly qualifies as “spying”, and it would have been unambiguously legal if a police technician had operated the same gadget for the same purpose.

    While there might have been a technical breach of a law here, it doesn’t go anywhere near violating anyone’s human rights and it certainly doesn’t warrant 280 parliamentary questions. It’s like complaining that a group of police used an army truck to execute an arrest warrant, and a soldier drove the truck… that doesn’t mean the army “declared war” on the criminal, that their rights had been violated, or that Russel Norman should be popping around to the criminal’s home whenever summoned.

    And what does “tapping his internet” mean? Why hasn’t this been reported anywhere?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Tom Jackson (2,528 comments) says:

    the illegal surveillance is actually legal since the government retrospectively declared it legal

    David Garrett should be asking why they didn’t make his identity theft retrospectively legal.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Tom Jackson (2,528 comments) says:

    And what does “tapping his internet” mean? Why hasn’t this been reported anywhere?

    He’s a hardcore gamer who paid Telecom a fortune to lower his ping as much as possible so he could pwn noobs at CODMW. It was fine for a while and then performance suddenly degraded. Being a hardcore gamer who cares about such things, he noticed.

    It was reported, in New Zealand’s own version of the Folkish Observer

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10838484

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. TMC (74 comments) says:

    r69 or anyone else – given how all this is unfolding and now Winston is trying to shift the focus back onto Key (a play from the Len Brown book? blame the messenger?), wouldn’t this be a good time to go back on saying they’d work with Winston and NZ First? Do you think they would? I see their point of doing it to keep the greens and labour out but at this point, with Winston going feral, I’d support National revoking that and simply saying no to the guy and dealing with the consequences. They’d probably end up picking up even more support with a good chance of governing alone. Peters’ behaviour yesterday was pathetic. Or will Winston try to make a big song and dance and rule out National? Has the media ask either party if this changes things?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Nookin (3,185 comments) says:

    ” Remember he’s agreed to go into coalition with Peters after the election. ”
    No he has not. There is no agreement. He has simply refused to rule them out. He says it is unlikely. The most that he has said is that he would be prepared to have talks. That is hardly an agreement on a coalition. From memory, he has also observed that Peters loves to sit on the cross benches. Key may have no intention whatsoever of a coalition arrangement – merely agreement on supply and confidence. Don’t let facts get in the way of a good story, however.

    “But while he said discussions with NZ First were “unlikely”, he would not rule them out before the election.
    “In 2008 we ruled them out because we were unable to reconcile some of their statements on the Glenn donation matter,” Key said of NZ First.

    “Six years has passed and, should NZ First be returned to Parliament, we would not rule out a discussion after the election.”

    Key said his stance had softened on Peters, and he would be prepared to hold talks if it came to it.

    “It’s not like in 2011 where if he held the balance of power I would have rung the leader of the Labour Party and said ‘you’re now the prime minister because I’m not going to work with the guy’.” (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9631836/Big-shifts-in-Keys-coalition-preferences)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Tom Jackson (2,528 comments) says:

    There’s something very wrong in New Zealand.

    A fat, diabetic Maori and a bunch of young white Walter Mittys play at soldiers in the bush. In response, they are declared a terrorist threat and an entire town is invaded and terrorised by heavily armed authorities.

    Pretty much every New Zealander can see that the only things that Tame Iti is a threat to is himself and Kentucky Fried Chicken. The suggestion that he could lead any form of armed uprising was rightly greeted by mild amusement. His friends were the worst kind of Green pseuds, who again were objects of ridicule rather than fear.

    A fat German hacker moves to New Zealand with his family. He isn’t a murderer, or a terrorist, human trafficker, or an international drug dealer. His company allows people to illegally share the sort of shitty TV shows that most people like.

    As a response, the Government’s Security agency taps his communications, and his house is attacked by armed helicopters in a scene reminiscent of Apocalypse Now in case he might resist or run away (everyone knows he’d be faster if he tried to roll away).

    Something smells here. Is it the police just being eager for any excuse to play at soldiers, or is it something worse? What Dotcom is charged with is not a particularly worrying crime, it is not even anti-social behaviour. Why bother with all the silly crap? It makes no sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    ross69: Stick to The Standard, that is your level, this site being above your type.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Simon (717 comments) says:

    Yeah but Tom you trust the same people to run welfare, Health and education.

    Something is very wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. davidp (3,558 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson>He’s a hardcore gamer who paid Telecom a fortune to lower his ping as much as possible so he could pwn noobs at CODMW. It was fine for a while and then performance suddenly degraded. Being a hardcore gamer who cares about such things, he noticed.

    This is your proof of “tapping”? Seriously? Networks change all the time for all sorts of reasons, including routing changes that didn’t work out quite how they were intended to. Interpreting a change of network response time as being evidence of government surveillance is really only evidence of self-victimisation in the pursuit of self-publicity. And of tin foil hat wearing weirdness.

    The very idea that intelligence agencies rely on routing table updates in order to divert traffic for a specific person to some mysterious “tapping” server is just mad. Not as mad as believing an international con-man is going to build a submarine cable and give us all free internet. And not as mad as believing a reputational based service has a high level of security and privacy, even though its owner has been convicted of dishonesty in several countries and is currently on the run from the police. But still pretty mad.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. burt (8,035 comments) says:

    davidp

    It’s all less mad than believing socialism works – it’s failed every time it’s been tried – always. Yet Tom believes…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. burt (8,035 comments) says:

    It’s looking more and more like a vote for Dotcom would be a vote for Winston …. Clearly Dotcom isn’t as smart as he likes us to think he is if he’s dumb enough to have an association with a self serving proven liar like Winston.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Tom Jackson (2,528 comments) says:

    This is your proof of “tapping”? Seriously? Networks change all the time for all sorts of reasons, including routing changes that didn’t work out quite how they were intended to. Interpreting a change of network response time as being evidence of government surveillance is really only evidence of self-victimisation in the pursuit of self-publicity. And of tin foil hat wearing weirdness.

    Read the article. It wasn’t Telecom. His connection was being rerouted inside New Zealand. They were trying to work out what it was.

    Remember that Dotcom had personally paid Telecom a fortune to give him the absolutely fastest possible connection so he could play MW3.

    Kim Dotcom’s internet connection was being diverted inside New Zealand weeks before the Government Communications Security Bureau says it started spying on him.

    The Herald has obtained details showing Telecom engineers and staff at its technology services company Gen-I were investigating irregularities with his internet connection in November.

    The revelation has raised suspicion that Mr Dotcom was victim to earlier spying than the GCSB has admitted. It has brought fresh calls for an inquiry amid claims of the spy agency’s role in the international “Five Eyes” Echelon Network.

    The focus of the early investigation is the dedicated internet connection from Mr Dotcom’s mansion in Coatesville to the Sky Tower in Auckland. It was intended to give him the fastest possible internet connection – a factor which would have been critical in his quest to be the best in the online Modern Warfare 3 game.

    Mr Dotcom became the “number one” ranked player of the game before his arrest.

    During the record-setting effort, Gen-I staff began an investigation into the amount of time it took for an internet signal from Mr Dotcom’s home to reach an offshore Xbox computer server.

    Information held by the Herald shows Gen-I studied data showing the amount of time it took information on the internet connection to reach the Xbox server. It went from 30 milliseconds to 180 milliseconds – a huge increase for online gamers.

    The reason for the extra time emerged in a deeper inquiry, which saw a “Trace Route” search which tracks internet signals from their origin to their destinations. When the results were compared it showed the internet signal was being diverted inside New Zealand.

    The data showed the internet signal had previously taken two steps before going offshore – but was now taking five.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10838484

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Tom Jackson (2,528 comments) says:

    it’s all less mad than believing socialism works – it’s failed every time it’s been tried – always

    The Scandianavians are having a terrible time…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. davidp (3,558 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson>Read the article. It wasn’t Telecom. His connection was being rerouted inside New Zealand. They were trying to work out what it was.

    Restating a bizarre evidence-free bit of paranoia doesn’t help your case. What do you mean by “It wasn’t Telecom”? A traceroute is a basic network query that anyone can run from their own computer… it isn’t a tool reserved for a “deeper inquiry”. So the routing has changed. The article doesn’t explain where or why, even tho the traceroute would have given some diagnostic information that would have been useful for expert readers to determine what was going on. The article doesn’t give any evidence at all that the routing change was to support “tapping”. And as I said, interception capabilities are a lot more sophisticated than anything requiring router table changes.

    I also call bullshit on “Remember that Dotcom had personally paid Telecom a fortune to give him the absolutely fastest possible connection so he could play MW3″. Telecom runs a network with cable in the ground (or possibly a wireless signal to the Sky Tower if there is a line-of-sight path available) and the infrastructure to support routing and other system management functions. You buy products, which may be a cheap domestic connection. Or maybe an expensive business connection with higher speed and better hardware. Telecom don’t go laying your own personal cable or installing routing hardware just for an individual. And a business internet connection hardly costs “a fortune”.

    By the sounds of it, Dotcom’s business-grade internet connection was running slow. It happens to all of us at some stage. He has rung Telecom’s service desk, who has asked him to run a traceroute. They’ve noted that the routing had changed. And Dotcom, being Dotcom, has spotted the opportunity for a bit of narcisstic self-promotion. Rather than that routing changes fairly frequently, and it really isn’t evidence of a giant conspiracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Tom Jackson (2,528 comments) says:

    Restating a bizarre evidence-free bit of paranoia doesn’t help your case.

    Read the article, you moron.

    By the sounds of it, Dotcom’s business-grade internet connection was running slow.

    He’s rich. He didn’t have a regular internet connection.

    Read the article, you moron.

    Read the article, you moron.

    Read the article, you moron.

    Read the article, you moron.

    Read the article, you moron.

    Read the article, you moron.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. davidp (3,558 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson>He’s rich. He didn’t have a regular internet connection.

    For fucks sake you’re an idiot. Do you think they set up a second national network just for Dotcom, because that is what rich people can do? I’ve worked in large scale networking. I’ve read the article. And it still doesn’t make any sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. madworldman (1 comment) says:

    Farrar come on! Remember that the GCSB operated illegally here! Any suggestion that it’s not ok to ask questions about this is a disgrace! You’re becoming as credible as WhaleOil now.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. itstricky (1,699 comments) says:

    Farrar come on! Remember that the GCSB operated illegally here! Any suggestion that it’s not ok to ask questions about this is a disgrace! You’re becoming as credible as WhaleOil now.

    I’ve missed the party. Has Farrar told us how he came up with his numbers then? Not yet, you say?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Francis_X (149 comments) says:

    kowtow at February 13th, 2014 at 9:44 am asked,

    “Who let him in in the first place?”

    I believe that would be the current administration.

    Psycho Milt’s comments at February 13th, 2014 at 10:13 am seems fairly reasonable to me. The raids on KDC’s property were illegal and the spying on 88 New Zealanders was illegal.

    Let’s turn it around shall we? Had Labor been in office the last 5 years, most of us here would be screaming blue murder at the communist police totalitarian Helengrad homo greenie nanny state! (Of course we would it’s a given.)

    But because Key is ruling the roost, the best that DPF can come up with is how many questions were asked in the House on KDC.

    Is DPF suggesting that the Opposition should not ask Questions? Especially embarrassing ones? I understand that’s very popular in Zimbabwe and Nth Korea.

    Instead of posturing on the issue of how many Questions were asked – maybe it might be more instructive if DPF told us what those Questions actually were?

    Now THAT would be interesting eh?

    Ok. Back to your anti-KDC ranting peeps.

    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.