Pat Brittenden

Pat Brittenden on Dotcom and the Internet party

Pat Brittenden has a very good post about Kim Dotcom and his Internet Party. It attempts to explore motivations and at the same time makes some very good observations.

I find the idea of Kim Dotcom forming a political party a fascinating plot in this years drama that is the 2014 election.

I want to know what Kim’s end game is, and I wonder if there is a chance that his involvement with the election this year will aid National in being re-elected, so I ponder again what his end game is.

I see now that Russell Norman has asked the same questions as it was revealed on Newstalk ZB yesterday that he twice approached Mr. Dotcom asking him not to form a party as it would split the vote on the left. An astute observation by Dr. Norman who is fast becoming one of the more enlightened MPs we have in parliament.

There is such an interesting sub-text here that will only be revealed if the questions are put to Mr. Dotcom himself.

  • Why are you bankrolling a political party when you cannot be elected to parliament?
  • What are you main ambitions behind the party?
  • Are you wanting a change of government?
  • If so are you not concerned that your party will take votes away from the left, especially some of the Greens youth vote?

Good and valid questions, though I suspect Kim Dotcom has no interest in politics other than pure revenge. He is a spiteful child-like bully who feels slighted and so he is going to try and upset things. So revenge and spite but also venal self-interest in the hope that Labour will become government and won’t extradite him.  Read more »

Len Brown and campaigning on values

Tim Murphy at the Herald tweeted:

Really? How come Pat Brittenden managed to find some evidence…suggest the Herald researchers try harder.

Here is some audio from 2010 when he chatted openly about his faith and his desire to emulate a political figure due to his integrity.

Mayor Len Brown chats openly about when he attended church and what denomination he was attached to, then Len was asked if he prayed.

Read more »

Irrelevant? Helen Kelly thinks so

Helen Kelly thinks I am irrelevant.

Yet she took time out of her busy schedule trying to screw over Peter Jackson and other Kiwi employers to comment about a supposed irrelevant blogger.

Council of Trade Unions president Helen Kelly said there had been a concerted attack on unions by Mr Slater. She said Mr Slater was “irrelevant” but was concerned about the port “putting the knife into its own staff”.  Read more »

The Panel

Yesterday I was on The Panel on Pat Brittenden’s Radio Rhema show.

Talking firstly about Rod Petricevic and the sentencing he received today, is Cameron Slater and Sue Bradford. There’s more topics on the agenda today, including euthanasia.

Listen below for The Panel. It was pretty tough for me to be talking about euthanasia at the moment.

The Panel

Yesterday I was on Radio Rhema and Pat Brittenden’s show.

The show was about:

‘Is John Key’s deal with Sky City unfair?’ – this is the question Cameron Slater from Whale Oil and Craig Heilmann discuss to get the ball rolling on today, followed by much more topics up for debate.

Radio Rhema at 1140

I’m on Pat Brittenden’s panel this morning. You can listen online or tune in through the normal fashion.

Our topics are:

Paid Parental leave veto

Civil detention legislation

Class shut down due to poor NCEA results

Ports leaked info

Radio Rhema with Pat Brittenden

I am on my regular Thursday slot on Radio Rhema with Pat Brittenden at 11:40.

Listen in. I will post the audio as soon as Pat makes it available.

The Panel with Pat Brittenden

I was on Radio Rhema with Pat Brittenden and Richard Barter. We talk about Nick Smith, The Ports of Auckland and wearing religious iconography.

Defamation or Outrageous Breach of Privacy?

Last week as pretty hectic was I continued to tell the truth about the Maritime Union, Garry Parsloe and Helen Kelly. Busting each and every one of their falsehoods that were feeding the gullible and accepting media.

Via my tipline I released the details of a wharfie who maligned the company that had been so generous to him.

Helen Kelly and Garry Parsloe along with all the useful idiots of the leftwing of the blogosphere jumped up and down calling it an outrageous breach of privacy and a “disgraceful breach of trust“. The poor hard done by wharfie even went on television and had a bit of a sook about how outraged he was about the breach of privacy, and one of his mates sent threats via email.

Then after I went on Radio Rhema with Pat Brittenden to talk about the issue Helen Kelly went all septic and threatened legal action for slander and defamation of “her worker”.

Note her words…”slandered one of our members”…and…”got the facts completely wrong”…and…”completely untrue”. Strong and emphatic words, not much room for wriggle there.

Now this is where it gets interesting. In order for there to be a slander or a defamation of her worker then I must have not told truth. If, as I contend, I have told the truth then no defamation or slander has occurred. Neither is there a slander or defamation action possible against Radio Rhema if I told the truth.

Which puts the Maritime Union, Garry Parsloe and Helen Kelly in a difficult position.

Either I told the truth and there was an outrageous breach of privacy, and that is one position they have, after all they have complained to the Privacy Commissioner about it.

Or, it is a slander and defamation because I did not tell the truth and therefore their action with the Privacy Commissioner is about to fail.

The two positions cannot exist together.

I know what the truth is, and I can reasonably be assured that any defamation or slander action by Helen Kelly will fail as spectacularly as their strike action is currently failing.

They can stick with the line that I have slandered their worker, that everything I have said is “completely untrue” and that I got the “facts completely wrong”…and we can visit that and test it in court…or they can admit that their complaint to the Privacy Commissioner is now based entirely on lies. Of course the reverse is possible…that the details I released are in fact correct and Cecil Walker is an ungrateful and disloyal wretch, and that I haven’t slandered him at all.

As I have said above the two positions  cannot possibly exist together. Helen Kelly has some choices to make.

Helen Kelly threatens Radio Rhema

I was in at Radio Rhema today doing my regular Thursday slot with Pat Brittenden.

When I arrived I was talking to the producer of his show and she played me an audio file of a voicemail message left by Helen Kelly.

In the audio she threatens Radio Rhema with legal action and questions why they continue to use me on their show.

At the end of the message she says if Radio Rhema fails to withdraw their interview with me from yesterday then they would serve papers on the station.

We

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

.

So Helen Kelly doesn’t like me telling the truth about the wharfies and so she threatens a christian radio station. That’s like going down to the SPCA and kicking a kitten.

Pat Brittenden isn’t one to be cowed by union bullies, in the show I offered to do a head to head debate with Helen Kelly and called her a coward because I doubted she would accept.

Pat and his producer called Helen Kelly and she refused to a debate with me on Pat’s show.

Bullies and now cowards….no wonder the union wants time off to go shopping with the missus.

UPDATE: Pat Brittenden has posted part of the audio of Helen Kelly’s threats. At the end of the message she clearly said that she would be sending legal letters unless her requests were met.

And Helen Kelly has whinged on Pat’s Facebook page:

Dear Mr Brittenden

I don’t expect to be used by your station in the way you seem intent on doing. I have had a respectful relationship with Rhema and have done many interviews etc. I have asked you to correct a very serious statement made on your Programme about a person who is involved in the Port dispute and to date this has not been done. I would expect you would want to do this if my concern is valid. I have also asked to talk to you about the dispute. I note Mr Slater is saying I have threatened you with suing if you keep using him. You know this is not true. Any liable action will be regarding an uncorrected statement. My offer is still open and I am happy to talk about it with you. I am on 021XXXXXX.

Yours Sincerely
Helen Kelly.