Interesting how the first word of the heading to this article is “satire” as if the readers needs to be explicitly informed that the contents of the article blur the line between truth and outrageousness. Similarly in Tuesday’s post “amusement: get coked up with Clarke”.
Rumours circulating that the partner of a “high profile female politician” was to appear in court this week have been laughed at by Clark, who posted “yes but have you ever seen Clarke Gayford and me in the same room at the same time?”. The police have confirmed he is not and has not been the subject of any police inquiry.
I wonder what the motive behind someone who goes to the trouble of producing and publishing satire like this? Perhaps to influence the more gullible reader into considering there might be a grain of truth in Gayford being involved with Cocaine. Given both posts are anonymous I can satirically conclude the author is a rabid National supporter on crack.
It’s a graphic, not an article. As the saying goes, “there’s no smoke without fire.’ But you may like to tell us: why then was the much vaunted wedding cancelled?
National can go into the dock along with Gayford and his mount. You don’t like derission at the hands of the public? Stay out of the public sphere and go hide in a deep hole.
The graphic (to be pedantic) is an example of “smoke and mirrors”, no fire involved,not even a spark. I don’t have a clue why the wedding was cancelled, nor would want to postulate, but perhaps you have something to share?
“The police have confirmed he is not and has not been the subject of any police inquiry.”
On the island of Jersey in the channel islands, there was rumour of ritual satanic child abuse for many decades, then one day building work at Haut de la Garenne, former orphanage, uncovered the remains of children in the basement. An investigation was launched and for several weeks all eyes were on the Queen’s principality of Jersey.
A principality is under direct rule of a member of royalty, it does not come under mainland juristiction nor are they part of any group such as the European Union.
All of a sudden the Chief of Police in Jersey was suspended and the investigation was put under the command of mainland Police who declared the remains as animal bones and part of a cocnut. Then several years later the truth finally came out, the remains were in fact those of a child. Jimmy Saville was amongst other celbrities and politicians a regular visitor to Haut de la Garenne and the deceased Saville was now being investigated for the rape and murder of children.
So ask yourself is there never any foundation in rumour?
Are the police always right?
Does political corruption play any part in what the police announce as fact and fiction?
The fallacy of defective induction is commonly used as an argument particularly on social media. Another good example, besides the one given by cunning5tunt, would be a government department found to be concealing information, and then concluding that all government agencies could be hiding information and so no government can be trusted.
Under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 everyone the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
Loading...
cunning5tuntsaid:
Steve said, “The fallacy of defective induction is commonly used as an argument particularly on social media. Another good example, besides the one given by cunning5tunt, would be a government department found to be concealing information, and then concluding that all government agencies could be hiding information and so no government can be trusted.”
That is not what I said nor was it my point.
My point was that sometimes rumours are true and that “government agencies” do not always tell the truth. We are seeing a lot of that at the moment aren’t we, government lies and corruption.
You may believe and trust the government, you’d be a fool to do so and so you should ask yourself is there never any foundation in rumour?
Are the police always right?
Does political corruption play any part in what the police announce as fact and fiction?
Let me get this right. Your argument is, sometimes rumours are true, therefore it could be true that a rumour that Clarke Gayford is involved somehow with cocaine could be true…. the hoary chestnut “where there’s smoke there’s fire”.
Let me give you an example, there were rumours circulating that the partner of a “high profile female politician” was to appear in court last Wednesday on drug related charges. There was no such court appearance, so can we conclude that some rumours are false. In fact most rumours are mischief making and some people just enjoy making things up, so just use your common sense.
Loading...
cunning5tuntsaid:
Maybe only the rumpur about the court case was false, but the cocaine use and dealing could be true. Time will tell. You never answered my questions.
Is there never any foundation in rumour?
Are the police always right?
Does political corruption play any part in what the police announce as fact and fiction?
Loading...
Stephensaid:
Is there never any foundation in a rumour?
Let me give you another example. Back in November last year, Geoffrey Churchman met with Judith Collins over drinks. One thing signaled by Geoffrey Churchman at the time was that National was going to discuss a campaign to “defund the media”and there were are couple of new media initiatives “coming soon”. A rumour around Waikanae at the time suggested that it was Churchman who suggested to Collins that National should fund the WaikanaeWatch website to promote National policies, but more importantly to undermine the Labour government.
Geoffrey Churchman has never denied the rumour, however in a WaikanaeWatch post on 11 Feb, it says “we get nothing for providing the other side of the story that the Establishment doesn’t want you to know”, and then asks for a donation.
How much funding WaikanaeWatch may have got from the National Party will never be known as Collins was dumped as leader by the National Party the following week. The rumour overstated that the meeting in Waikanae the prior week may have contributed to her dumping, however there were probably more important reasons.
So is there never any foundation in a rumour? That depends on the facts and the motive behind it and the reputation of the source of the rumour. I’d sooner deal in known facts personally.
Loading...
cunning5tuntsaid:
Without rumour or assumption there would never be any investigstion and as a result a lot of what is discovered would remain hidden. If you want to remain in the realm of only what is known to be fact then I would say you are living in a false reality. Known facts change all the time, the institution that purports known facts as absolute truth to maintain it’s vanity driven control over present and future is actually living in a false past. You may choose to get your Known facts from one source and deride any questioning or unknown facts as lies. I choose to have an open mind, as the past has shown that known facts are exposed as lies all the time, it is the institutions that live in falsehood.
Loading...
cunning5tuntsaid:
Is there never any foundation in rumour?
Are the police always right?
Does political corruption play any part in what the police announce as fact and fiction?
Interesting how the first word of the heading to this article is “satire” as if the readers needs to be explicitly informed that the contents of the article blur the line between truth and outrageousness. Similarly in Tuesday’s post “amusement: get coked up with Clarke”.
Rumours circulating that the partner of a “high profile female politician” was to appear in court this week have been laughed at by Clark, who posted “yes but have you ever seen Clarke Gayford and me in the same room at the same time?”. The police have confirmed he is not and has not been the subject of any police inquiry.
I wonder what the motive behind someone who goes to the trouble of producing and publishing satire like this? Perhaps to influence the more gullible reader into considering there might be a grain of truth in Gayford being involved with Cocaine. Given both posts are anonymous I can satirically conclude the author is a rabid National supporter on crack.
It’s a graphic, not an article. As the saying goes, “there’s no smoke without fire.’ But you may like to tell us: why then was the much vaunted wedding cancelled?
National can go into the dock along with Gayford and his mount. You don’t like derission at the hands of the public? Stay out of the public sphere and go hide in a deep hole.
The graphic (to be pedantic) is an example of “smoke and mirrors”, no fire involved,not even a spark. I don’t have a clue why the wedding was cancelled, nor would want to postulate, but perhaps you have something to share?
“The police have confirmed he is not and has not been the subject of any police inquiry.”
On the island of Jersey in the channel islands, there was rumour of ritual satanic child abuse for many decades, then one day building work at Haut de la Garenne, former orphanage, uncovered the remains of children in the basement. An investigation was launched and for several weeks all eyes were on the Queen’s principality of Jersey.
A principality is under direct rule of a member of royalty, it does not come under mainland juristiction nor are they part of any group such as the European Union.
All of a sudden the Chief of Police in Jersey was suspended and the investigation was put under the command of mainland Police who declared the remains as animal bones and part of a cocnut. Then several years later the truth finally came out, the remains were in fact those of a child. Jimmy Saville was amongst other celbrities and politicians a regular visitor to Haut de la Garenne and the deceased Saville was now being investigated for the rape and murder of children.
So ask yourself is there never any foundation in rumour?
Are the police always right?
Does political corruption play any part in what the police announce as fact and fiction?
The fallacy of defective induction is commonly used as an argument particularly on social media. Another good example, besides the one given by cunning5tunt, would be a government department found to be concealing information, and then concluding that all government agencies could be hiding information and so no government can be trusted.
Under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 everyone the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
Steve said, “The fallacy of defective induction is commonly used as an argument particularly on social media. Another good example, besides the one given by cunning5tunt, would be a government department found to be concealing information, and then concluding that all government agencies could be hiding information and so no government can be trusted.”
That is not what I said nor was it my point.
My point was that sometimes rumours are true and that “government agencies” do not always tell the truth. We are seeing a lot of that at the moment aren’t we, government lies and corruption.
You may believe and trust the government, you’d be a fool to do so and so you should ask yourself is there never any foundation in rumour?
Are the police always right?
Does political corruption play any part in what the police announce as fact and fiction?
Now jog on and get your 4th booster.
Let me get this right. Your argument is, sometimes rumours are true, therefore it could be true that a rumour that Clarke Gayford is involved somehow with cocaine could be true…. the hoary chestnut “where there’s smoke there’s fire”.
Let me give you an example, there were rumours circulating that the partner of a “high profile female politician” was to appear in court last Wednesday on drug related charges. There was no such court appearance, so can we conclude that some rumours are false. In fact most rumours are mischief making and some people just enjoy making things up, so just use your common sense.
Maybe only the rumpur about the court case was false, but the cocaine use and dealing could be true. Time will tell. You never answered my questions.
Is there never any foundation in rumour?
Are the police always right?
Does political corruption play any part in what the police announce as fact and fiction?
Is there never any foundation in a rumour?
Let me give you another example. Back in November last year, Geoffrey Churchman met with Judith Collins over drinks. One thing signaled by Geoffrey Churchman at the time was that National was going to discuss a campaign to “defund the media”and there were are couple of new media initiatives “coming soon”. A rumour around Waikanae at the time suggested that it was Churchman who suggested to Collins that National should fund the WaikanaeWatch website to promote National policies, but more importantly to undermine the Labour government.
Geoffrey Churchman has never denied the rumour, however in a WaikanaeWatch post on 11 Feb, it says “we get nothing for providing the other side of the story that the Establishment doesn’t want you to know”, and then asks for a donation.
How much funding WaikanaeWatch may have got from the National Party will never be known as Collins was dumped as leader by the National Party the following week. The rumour overstated that the meeting in Waikanae the prior week may have contributed to her dumping, however there were probably more important reasons.
So is there never any foundation in a rumour? That depends on the facts and the motive behind it and the reputation of the source of the rumour. I’d sooner deal in known facts personally.
Without rumour or assumption there would never be any investigstion and as a result a lot of what is discovered would remain hidden. If you want to remain in the realm of only what is known to be fact then I would say you are living in a false reality. Known facts change all the time, the institution that purports known facts as absolute truth to maintain it’s vanity driven control over present and future is actually living in a false past. You may choose to get your Known facts from one source and deride any questioning or unknown facts as lies. I choose to have an open mind, as the past has shown that known facts are exposed as lies all the time, it is the institutions that live in falsehood.
Is there never any foundation in rumour?
Are the police always right?
Does political corruption play any part in what the police announce as fact and fiction?