Newstalk ZB's Canterbury Mornings was thrilled to host Charlie and Craig Reid of The Proclaimers live in the studio today. 

John talked to the Scottish legends about their musical journey, the new album 'Dentures Out', and their concert tonight in Christchurch, which is part of their biggest New Zealand tour to date. 

LISTEN ABOVE

Newstalk ZB's Canterbury Mornings was thrilled to host Charlie and Craig Reid of The Proclaimers live in the studio today. 
John talked to the Scottish legends about their musical journey, the new album 'Dentures Out', and their concert tonight in Christchurch, which is part of their biggest New Zealand tour to date. 
LISTEN ABOVE

Every weekday join the new voice of local issues on Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald, 9am-12pm weekdays.

It’s all about the conversation with John, as he gets right into the things that get our community talking.

If it’s news you’re after, backing John is the combined power of the Newstalk ZB and New Zealand Herald news teams. Meaning when it comes to covering breaking news – you will not beat local radio.

With two decades experience in communications based in Christchurch, John also has a deep understanding of and connections to the Christchurch and Canterbury commercial sector.

Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings 9am-12pm with John MacDonald on 100.1FM and iHeartRadio.

Every weekday join the new voice of local issues on Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald, 9am-12pm weekdays. It’s all about the conversation with John, as he gets right into the things that get our community talking. If it’s news you’re after, backing John is the combined power of the Newstalk ZB and New Zealand Herald news teams. Meaning when it comes to covering breaking news – you will not beat local radio. With two decades experience in communications based in Christchurch, John also has a deep understanding of and connections to the Christchurch and Canterbury commercial sector. Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings 9am-12pm with John MacDonald on 100.1FM and iHeartRadio.

Every weekday join the new voice of local issues on Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald, 9am-12pm weekdays.It’s all about the conversation with John, as he gets right into the things that get our community talking.

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

The Proclaimers: Rock duo on their musical journey, new album, and the Christchurch concert

You’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who hasn’t been appalled by the cases here in New Zealand where a child has been killed and the people who know full well what has happened have kept their mouths shut.

They’re able to do that because of the right to remain silent, which National has announced it wants to get rid of in cases where a child under the age of 12 has been killed.

I’m one of those people appalled by those examples we’ve seen where it’s obvious someone knows something, but they haven’t said anything to protect themselves and/or those responsible.

The most well-known case would probably be the Kahui twins. But there have been others too.

But even though I’ve been appalled by these cases, I’m opposed to National’s plan, because however much we might not like it, the right to remain silent is fundamental.

Defence lawyer and former Crown prosecutor John Munro doesn’t like National’s plan either. He says the policy would have to go through the Attorney-General, Crown Law, the select committee and other parliamentary processes.

Then outfits such as the Law Society and the Criminal Bar Association would want to be involved and, most likely, they’d be opposed to it.

Not that that would necessarily stop National, if it forms the next Government, from doing what it wants to do. Because we’ve seen Governments before ignore concerns raised by the likes of the Attorney-General.

But I think what National’s proposing would be a step too far.

Not just because of the potential for innocent people to say stuff or be forced to say stuff that could work against them.

But, once you start taking away the right to silence in some situations, where do you stop?

If you take away the right to silence for people who might know stuff when a child is killed, what’s to stop more exemptions being added to the list?

Because, when it comes to the law, precedent is everything.

What’s more, forcing someone to speak doesn’t mean they’re going to tell the truth.

Also, the Bill of Rights isn’t a nice-to-have, or something you stick with only when it suits.

Ironically, perhaps, National has announced this policy three years since the killing of Lower Hutt toddler Baby Ru.

I mentioned the Kahui twins before. This is another case where people have used their right to remain silent and, three years on, no one’s been held accountable.

He would have been turning five this week if he was still alive. But he’s not, because of the blunt force trauma he suffered that was so severe it fractured his skull.

It’s useful to remind ourselves of that shocking case when we consider National’s plan, which would take away the right to silence for the likes of the three people who were on the scene when Ru was injured.

But even that’s not enough to make me think this idea of National’s is a good one.

LISTEN ABOVE

You’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who hasn’t been appalled by the cases here in New Zealand where a child has been killed and the people who know full well what has happened have kept their mouths shut.
They’re able to do that because of the right to remain silent, which National has announced it wants to get rid of in cases where a child under the age of 12 has been killed.
I’m one of those people appalled by those examples we’ve seen where it’s obvious someone knows something, but they haven’t said anything to protect themselves and/or those responsible.
The most well-known case would probably be the Kahui twins. But there have been others too.
But even though I’ve been appalled by these cases, I’m opposed to National’s plan, because however much we might not like it, the right to remain silent is fundamental.
Defence lawyer and former Crown prosecutor John Munro doesn’t like National’s plan either. He says the policy would have to go through the Attorney-General, Crown Law, the select committee and other parliamentary processes.
Then outfits such as the Law Society and the Criminal Bar Association would want to be involved and, most likely, they’d be opposed to it.
Not that that would necessarily stop National, if it forms the next Government, from doing what it wants to do. Because we’ve seen Governments before ignore concerns raised by the likes of the Attorney-General.
But I think what National’s proposing would be a step too far.
Not just because of the potential for innocent people to say stuff or be forced to say stuff that could work against them.
But, once you start taking away the right to silence in some situations, where do you stop?
If you take away the right to silence for people who might know stuff when a child is killed, what’s to stop more exemptions being added to the list?
Because, when it comes to the law, precedent is everything.
What’s more, forcing someone to speak doesn’t mean they’re going to tell the truth.
Also, the Bill of Rights isn’t a nice-to-have, or something you stick with only when it suits.
Ironically, perhaps, National has announced this policy three years since the killing of Lower Hutt toddler Baby Ru.
I mentioned the Kahui twins before. This is another case where people have used their right to remain silent and, three years on, no one’s been held accountable.
He would have been turning five this week if he was still alive. But he’s not, because of the blunt force trauma he suffered that was so severe it fractured his skull.
It’s useful to remind ourselves of that shocking case when we consider National’s plan, which would take away the right to silence for the likes of the three people who were on the scene when Ru was injured.
But even that’s not enough to make me think this idea of National’s is a good one.
LISTEN ABOVE

John MacDonald: Ditching the right to silence would be a slippery slope

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/d8c0d49f-6107-4fcf-b11b-b4e70183c18b/transcript

Ahead of his Christchurch Town Hall show, Live Aid co-founder and former Ultravox frontman Midge Ure sat down with John MacDonald to look back on more than 50 years in the music industry.

LISTEN ABOVE

Ahead of his Christchurch Town Hall show, Live Aid co-founder and former Ultravox frontman Midge Ure sat down with John MacDonald to look back on more than 50 years in the music industry.
LISTEN ABOVE

Midge Ure: Live Aid co-founder and former Ultravox frontman ahead of his New Zealand tour

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/e601333d-1a95-405e-b9c6-b4e7017f2142/transcript

Anyone who’s ever been the victim of a home invasion needs to avoid seeing the latest election campaign ad from the Taxpayers’ Union.

It’s the latest in a series of attack ads from this outfit. Alongside all the other negative advertising out there from some of the actual political parties.

But this one takes it to the next level.

What they’ve done, is they’ve used AI to create a video which shows Labour leader Chris Hipkins kicking down the doors at people's homes, rushing in and helping himself to their wallets and cash.

The objective is to show how much of a money grab Labour’s capital gains tax would be.

The part that I find most disturbing, is where the Chris Hipkins character kicks in the door of an elderly woman’s home while she’s sitting on the couch.

The Hipkins character then grabs money sitting on the TV cabinet and takes off, leaving the woman sitting there like a stunned mullet.

That’s why I’m saying that anyone who’s ever been the victim of a home invasion needs to avoid seeing this thing. Because I’m in no doubt that it will be triggering for some people.

Which is why I think it is the most bad taste election campaign ad I’ve ever seen.

I’m not the only one who feels that way.

David Cormack owns Cormack PR and he’s told the NZ Herald that the ad is “revolting”. He uses some other words too. But I’m not going to repeat them.

He’s saying today: “The Taxpayers Union is putting Hipkins at the scene of a robbery. There’s a difference between saying someone will cost you money and depicting them stealing from your wallet.”

He says: “They’ve turned a tax argument into a home invasion.”

And that is what makes this ad so appalling. Say what you like about Chris Hipkins, but don’t use something so terrifying, like a home invasion, to make a political point.

But, as I said earlier, the Taxpayers’ Union will accuse me of overreacting.

I know that, because Jordan Williams from the Union called me this morning to say it was just satire.

After telling the NZ Herald: “AI is so good now we have to artistically make it so over the top to make it clear that it is done in humour rather than for someone to take it seriously.”

He said: “I got advice on this ad and the lawyer’s advice was that no one’s going to look at this and think it’s genuinely Chris Hipkins because it’s so over the top.”

But I’m sorry Jordan. Negative political ads have had their day. And appalling ads like this one should never see the light of day.

LISTEN ABOVE

Anyone who’s ever been the victim of a home invasion needs to avoid seeing the latest election campaign ad from the Taxpayers’ Union.
It’s the latest in a series of attack ads from this outfit. Alongside all the other negative advertising out there from some of the actual political parties.
But this one takes it to the next level.
What they’ve done, is they’ve used AI to create a video which shows Labour leader Chris Hipkins kicking down the doors at people's homes, rushing in and helping himself to their wallets and cash.
The objective is to show how much of a money grab Labour’s capital gains tax would be.
The part that I find most disturbing, is where the Chris Hipkins character kicks in the door of an elderly woman’s home while she’s sitting on the couch.
The Hipkins character then grabs money sitting on the TV cabinet and takes off, leaving the woman sitting there like a stunned mullet.
That’s why I’m saying that anyone who’s ever been the victim of a home invasion needs to avoid seeing this thing. Because I’m in no doubt that it will be triggering for some people.
Which is why I think it is the most bad taste election campaign ad I’ve ever seen.
I’m not the only one who feels that way.
David Cormack owns Cormack PR and he’s told the NZ Herald that the ad is “revolting”. He uses some other words too. But I’m not going to repeat them.
He’s saying today: “The Taxpayers Union is putting Hipkins at the scene of a robbery. There’s a difference between saying someone will cost you money and depicting them stealing from your wallet.”
He says: “They’ve turned a tax argument into a home invasion.”
And that is what makes this ad so appalling. Say what you like about Chris Hipkins, but don’t use something so terrifying, like a home invasion, to make a political point.
But, as I said earlier, the Taxpayers’ Union will accuse me of overreacting.
I know that, because Jordan Williams from the Union called me this morning to say it was just satire.
After telling the NZ Herald: “AI is so good now we have to artistically make it so over the top to make it clear that it is done in humour rather than for someone to take it seriously.”
He said: “I got advice on this ad and the lawyer’s advice was that no one’s going to look at this and think it’s genuinely Chris Hipkins because it’s so over the top.”
But I’m sorry Jordan. Negative political ads have had their day. And appalling ads like this one should never see the light of day.
LISTEN ABOVE

John MacDonald: This is a new low in political attack ads

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/1fea80da-3eca-4ead-9bea-b4e40183de66/transcript

The Proclaimers: Rock duo on their musical journey, new album, and the Christchurch concert

In 1 playlist(s)

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips