Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.
The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.
Yahoo! Search
Preceding Posts
- AP reporter caught creating the truth
- Loaded Questions
- Quote of the Day
- One more pledge
- Oh the Humanity
- "Give me some ammo! Give me a magazine!"
- NY Times distorts body armour story to give negati...
- A split developing between US-centric conservative...
- Crime figures twisted for political reasons
- Documentary on Hanadi Jaradat, a female Palestinia...
Archives
SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved
Friday, August 26, 2005
A lefty writing for the MSM can't find anything wrong with Clark's speeding motorcade
Rob O'Neill writes:
O'Neill appears to be a technology reporter for Fairfax Australia papers the Sydney Morning Herald and the Melbourne Age. Note his use of certain terms suggests he considers himself part of the political left.
You can read an Australian bloggers exchange with O'Neill about perceived bias in the MSM here. I imagine the irony will be lost on O'Neill.
I must say the political right is providing a lot of entertainment on the Helen Clark motorcade non-issue.If he was driving by himself, the civilian driver had no legal right to exceed the speed limit for any reason. However vehicles carrying high-ranking elected officials can ignore the road rules in certain circumstances. Clark and Sutton communicated through Clark's press officer their wish to be at an airport in a timeframe obviously requiring speeding. Clark was shown via witness statements to be aware of the speeds reached by the motorcade. But after the trip was publicized in the media, neither Prime Minister Helen Clark nor Minister Jim Sutton chose to publicly endorse the drivers actions. As a result the civilian driver and two accompanying Police officers have been convicted.
These guys are whipping themselves up into a huge lather trying to show that the person driving a car is not responsible for the speed it travels at. The person responsible, they say, is the one in the back seat.
O'Neill appears to be a technology reporter for Fairfax Australia papers the Sydney Morning Herald and the Melbourne Age. Note his use of certain terms suggests he considers himself part of the political left.
You can read an Australian bloggers exchange with O'Neill about perceived bias in the MSM here. I imagine the irony will be lost on O'Neill.
5 Comments:
If no one except the drive is responsible why were three other people charged as well as the drivers?
Why do 70% of kiwis think Helen Clark is a liar?
Why is any issue about Helen Clark's integrity a "non-issue"?
The judge says the drivers have to be responsible for their own actions and that their officers let them down. He must be a lefty too ...
Judge Strettell said the three were let down by the system.
They had no briefing from the senior protection officer who was in control of the motorcade, no indication of how they were to drive, no guidance from their commanding officer and there was no policy or protocol that specifically applied to this type of situation, he said.
However, he said the men had to be held accountable for their own driving.
"Each of the three drivers, in their desire to fulfil expectations imposed on them, didn't simply drive quickly, they drove dangerously."
I give Labour a serve here
http://www.nzbc.net.nz/nation/2005/08/labour-retreads-equity-sharing-scheme.html
the reason the centre looks like the left to you is the same reason the right in NZ can't win an election.
The judge is obviously correct (I wouldn't 2nd guess a judge) - if Clark and Sutton don't assume responsibilty for the journey, then indeed the driver is responsible.
Note the officers involved have been advised by the Police Association not to talk to the media, and the civilian driver says he can't talk because of a clause in his employment contract.
And no the judge isn't a leftie, he's just applying the law as it stands.
I will try and locate the law and/or statute which allows high-ranking officials to ignore the road rules.
Wow, Helen wasn't driving, that puts a whole new complexion on things. Err... Or not. The real issues arising out of the incident are:
1) Helen's credibility. Are the "I was working" and the "I didn't give the order" excuses really plausible?
2) Helen's leadership. Should she have stuck up for her underlings anyway? Was choosing to have a trial so close to the election a smart move?
3) Helen's subsequent actions. The evasion, the non apology, the whip around. I wonder how her lesser paid ministers feel about being forced to cough up for a PR stunt to cover for a fiasco they had no part in?
These are the issues that I, and even my centre / left wing friends, talk about when discussing this topic, not who was driving. Notably these are also the very issues completely missing from Rob's post.
You know I have little doubt Helen knew the car was travelling fast. Beyond that I know nothing. What should she have done? Buggered if I know.
Did she drop her drivers in it or did they drop her in it? Again I don't know.
Who's responsible? The drivers, because they were driving.
I think this has been a far bigger distraction to the other side than Labour. When they should have been delivering policy and "presenting a vision" they were hammering on about something most people don't give a damn about.
Politically, and this is sad to say, Helen Clark's credibility only has to be greater than Don Brash's.
I think we'd all like more.
Post a Comment
<< Home