Skip to content

Simon Power botches S92A interview

24/02/2009

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

Simon Power came across as unconvincing and ineffective in his response to questions, by Sean Plunket on the S92A copyright issue, on Morning Report a bit after 7 a.m. today. Frankly, Simon Power botched it.

Power could not or would not effectively respond to Plunket on why if this was a bad law, National did not drop it and write a better law. He took refuge in ‘the industry was close to a Code of Practice‘ gambit. Plunket pointed out that did not make a bad law a good one. Power was evasive when asked if interests outside NZ, especially US interests were driving this law. It would be truly appalling if National was yielding to such interests who would not get away with such behaviour in thier own home countries. Nor did Power have a satisfactory response as to why the Code was being drafted by parties who did not represent the people who would be affected, i.e. consumers.

National is making serious errors of judgment on this matter. Power’s performance was dreadful. Clearly someone sent him along as the patsy.

Adam asks again Who is the Ancient Mariner, seeking to fasten this stinking albatross of a law around National’s neck.

3 Comments
  1. James permalink
    28/02/2009 22:12

    Hi Adam,

    He made such a poor job of defending it, because its indefensible, thus why I support your view that he was sent as a patsy.

    I’ve been aware of it since I stumbled across an article in wikileaks that revealed U.S. plans in a memo to enforce a new stricter IP regime as a condition of signing an international treaty to reconcile the different regimes of individual countries so that each country could enforce the rules in other country’s jurisdictions.

    http://wikileaks.de/wiki/Secret_IP_pact_involving_NZ_draws_US_lawsuits

    Some very perceptive questions you ask. Hopefully my post above will go towards answering some of them

    Like

  2. 24/02/2009 09:17

    Sue Bradford came across as unconvincing and ineffective in her response to questions, by Sean Plunket on the S59 smacking, on Morning Report a bit after 7 a.m. today. Frankly, Sue Bradford botched it.

    Bradford could not or would not effectively respond to Plunket on why if this was a bad law, she did not drop it and write a better law.She took refuge in ‘we do not intend to ban smacking’ and ‘parenting groups are close to a code of smacking practice’ gambit. Plunket pointed out that did not make a bad law a good one. Bradford was evasive when asked if interests outside NZ, especially the United Nations interests were driving this law. It would be truly appalling if our lawmakers were yielding to such interests while their citizens administer smacking in their own homes. Nor did Bradford have a satisfactory response as to why the bill was drafted by parties who did not represent the people who would be affected, i.e. parents.

    Bradford is making serious errors of judgment on this matter. Her performance was dreadful.

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Prepare to do battle again « Alf Grumble

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: