without a shred of fact. I told him he was wrong, explained what really happened, even presented him with evidence. He replied with name calling and then by ignoring me. He never corrected or apologised, on the site or in person. I thought that disgraceful. So part of me thinks he can go hang. And he seems to be crossing lines all over the place at the moment, so like Trotter I'm not surprised. And I haven't spoken to Jim Mora (who I respect) and don't know what's gone on in the background. And sometimes there are professional reasons for these things that can't be seen from outside -- perhaps, for example, his sin was as much talking over Jim and things said off-air. And some of what he said seemed kinda defamatory. But then I realised a) the Lange case gave us pretty much free rein with MPs... b) he's ranted like that any number of times... c) the panel is all about our various opinions and we are asked to say what's been on our mind... and d) well, we are supposed to defend free speech even if the person speaking has been a dick (to paraphrase Voltaire). So, yeah, it seems an odd call to me from RNZ. Sadly heavy-handed. Ethics are vital, but this comes across as smug. And if there's no more to it than we know, then unfair. But I wonder if there is more to it. Part of me thinks it's a lesson