I know its old news but Bryan Gould once again raises the spectre of Bradley Ambrose and the Teapot Tapes over at the Herald.
The police will support threats issued by the executive to deter the media from publishing material that as far as we know was lawfully obtained and that was of substantial public interest.
Lawfully obtained? I'm sure that hasn't been proven yet, Bryan. So does Bryan advocate the fact that most politicians speech and communication should be recorded because its of "substantial public interest"? And who then defines "public interest"? Should we just record everything and then appoint a panel to review whats important? We could call this panel a "central committee" - for the people and by the people.
I'm still wondering why few people have made the connection between the fact that Bradley was the poor bloke just caught in the middle, trying to do his job and the fact that, apart from John Key's security detail, was probably the only person there trained in covert surveillance.
