National leader Simon Bridges agrees to remove videos using Parliament TV footage
Simon Bridges has agreed to remove videos published online by the National Party that use Parliament TV footage of MPs without their permission.
The National leader said despite the party’s belief in freedom of speech, he hopes that by agreeing to take down the videos instead of defying the Speaker’s orders, progress could be made on changing the rules.
Bridges said the party has agreed to remove the videos, as he feels “encouraged by the timeline for resolution of these matters which should be concluded by early-November”.
“National will remove the videos by 5pm today.”
Free speech my arse. He is such a useless mummys boy. If he had any spine he would have told the speaker to go fuck himself. But no !
This is why the Nats are never getting my vote while he is leader. I thought he was growing some balls, but I was delusional to think he would change.
It’s not a free speech issue, it’s a property rights issue and Simon is in the wrong.
Property rights? The taxpayer pays for Parliamentary TV and it is okay by this taxpayer. 😡
Bridges is a bloody wimp. Submitting to the speakers ruling is a ridiculous roll over and scratch my tummy move by Bridges to an autocratic, overbearing and bossy, dictatorial Speaker. Worst Speaker ever.
You can’t say “National believe in freedom of speech” and then submit to National losing their freedom of speech because you are forced to. Shame on you Simon. You are weakening the freedom of speech of this country by submitting to this stupid ruling. Parliamentary TV is paid for by the taxpayer who are all adults and able to decide what is satire and what is not. Who cares if some complain, that is democracy. It was acceptable for the Greens to produce their ads using Parliamentary TV footage but not acceptable when National did it. It is pure politics. Shame on you too Trevor and your puppet masters.
Trevour is not at fault here. It’s this useless fucker Soyboy, for not having the balls to stand up for what is right. I wonder if DPF is advising him on this? Wouldn’t surprise me. It’s the kind of wimpish thing he would do.
Seems pragmatic to me, it is now before the committee.
Pity National helped ban AR-15s. It’d be far easier to shoot themselves in the foot with one.
So what does the National Party stand for? First they support and vote for these rules, then break them when convenient. And when the shittiest speaker in history calls them on it, they first bluster and then cave.
Are the rules good or are they bad or are they whatever principles National needs on the day? The more I see from National and Labour the more convinced I am that there is only one politician with any integrity who actually sticks to his principles and the party principles. Thank fuck my views are aligned with his as well.
He’s a gutless, slimy bastard.
Which one- the Duck or the Soyboy?
Soyboy. Paul Keating’s description of his opposition would be apt. ie “He’s just a shiver looking for a spine to run up.”
Mallard is a blustering bully
I thought that quote was Muldon talking about Rowling!
I expect this to be a strategic withdrawal.
The Ardern/English leader’s debate from 2017 will provide oodles of material for any similar ad, and Mallard won’t get a say.
Not a lot of point arguing with the man with the gavel no matter how much of a plonked he is.
Strategic withdrawal…Attack from the flank you reckon. 🇳🇿
Is this the best New Zealand has got to run the country…
Fuck me!!
Jesus wept!!
I would have liked to see Simon string Trevor along a bit more.
Make him squirm then give in.
I suggest the standing orders give no room for Simon Bridges to pursue this issue any further. I did not see it as a free speech matter. It was about Parliaments rules.
The Speaker, while following the rules has in my view once again shown inadequacy with his approach. The matter was one for the rules which seem out of date given the way the world works. Reducing questions until compliance was achieved was the action of a school teacher, not a Speaker of a House of Representatives. Cunning but not professional.
The speech used was dreadful. Sure Deborah Russell quoted from the classics but did not appear to actually have the deeper understanding necessary to do so. The action showed her in a poor light. I think portraying such inadequacy is entirely reasonable and the rules need amending to show up dingbat behaviour in the house.