- December 30, 2011 at 10:12 pm #732933
“What about The Exclusive Brethren being found out colluding with your Party in 2005″
What about the Exclusive Brethren?
Why should any group of people put some money into trying to get rid of a corrupt government by simply advertising during an election, cos that is all they did.December 30, 2011 at 10:24 pm #732935
DrLivingstoneMemberMember since: October 22, 2006
arandar, It has been suggested for some time that John Key& indeed Bill English were behind the leaking of the information to Nicky Hager speaks volumes about Keys integrity to his then leaderThe fact that the then leader of National Party lied about emails speaks volumes about The National Party.The fact that The Hollow Men was made into a stage play and also a film as a feature length documentary that was shown to sell-out audiences at The Wellington Festival in 2008 puts Doogies &OJs bleats into perspective And now we have Teapotgate with John Banks and John Key. Who will be playing the film leads in this murky saga?
Peoples Republic Of ChristchurchDecember 30, 2011 at 10:39 pm #732937
Because a film was made about it then it really must be all true.
YEAH RIGHT!December 31, 2011 at 10:06 am #732939
KiwiChickMemberMember since: May 9, 2008
No emails weren’t stolen, just a smoke screen put up by the people who leaked them.December 31, 2011 at 11:06 am #732941
DrLivingstoneMemberMember since: October 22, 2006
KC, Yes the “nice” Mr Key and The Double Dipper From Dipton Bill English it seems.
Peoples Republic Of ChristchurchDecember 31, 2011 at 11:17 am #732943
arandarMemberMember since: November 23, 2009
Old Jack, any group can advertise (or donate) either to promote their preferred party or to discredit one they dislike. They must simply put their names and contacts on the ads (or donations).
What is important is that we know WHO the group (or individual) is.
Why? Because it is important to know who benefits – what advantages they hope to get by spending what is always a large amount of money.
The Exclusive Brethren are a sect which has very strict rules – one being that they do not allow their members to vote.
Does it not seem strange then that they should take such an active albeit anonymous role in promoting a political party? And that the intended beneficiary (The National Party) of their advertising campaign lied about it? Until publicly caught?
Arandar/Himatangi BeachDecember 31, 2011 at 11:26 am #732945
BelladonnaMemberMember since: June 29, 2006
“Why should any group of people put some money into trying to get rid of a corrupt government by simply advertising during an election, cos that is all they did.”
The Exclusive Brethren do not vote,because of who-knows-what in their belief system. They’ve removed themselves from the process of voting in a govt & therefore,have NO business whatever in attempting to influence the outcome of an election.
And if it was all above board,why then did the Nats lie about it?December 31, 2011 at 1:30 pm #732947
“Old Jack, any group can advertise (or donate) either to promote their preferred party or to discredit one they dislike. They must simply put their names and contacts on the ads (or donations).”
That law was brought in after this rubbish surfaced. But even then, they were not giving money to any political party or even advertising for any political party, they were simply advertising against the corrupt government.
“They’ve removed themselves from the process of voting in a govt & therefore,have NO business whatever in attempting to influence the outcome of an election.”
Of course they have as they are business men and the government affects their business so even if they don’t vote, the are still on the electoral role.
“And if it was all above board,why then did the Nats lie about it?”
STUPIDITY!January 1, 2012 at 7:05 am #732949
yogiMemberMember since: April 2, 2008
‘Tea-tape’ costs bid is disturbing
5:30 AM Sunday Jan 1, 2012
The attorney-general presumably considers that there is some reasonable chance of obtaining an order of costs against the freelance cameraman who inadvertently recorded the “tea-tape” saga – or he would not be seeking one.
The cameraman, Bradley Ambrose, sought a declaration from the High Court at Auckland as to whether a recording he made of a pre-election conversation between Prime Minister John Key and Act candidate John Banks was legal. The court declined to make such a ruling on the grounds that it could be seen as pre-empting a police investigation.
That investigation continues, yet even before police decide whether charges will be laid, the Crown wants costs of almost $14,000 against the cameraman.
The decision to seek an order for costs may most charitably be described as churlish and vindictive. The High Court’s refusal to intervene in the process, which started when the Prime Minister laid a complaint with police, was neither a vindication of the PM’s case nor a rejection of Ambrose’s.
Key’s claim, that a conversation between two politicians who had invited the news media to a crowded and stage-managed public event was private, was wet but it accomplished what he wanted: it kept secret the details of a matter of important public interest while the election campaign was on.
That alone was offensive to democracy but the latest move has a much worse stench about it, of an executive branch happy to use its power to penalise people who, implicitly or explicitly, ask inconvenient questions.
The issues raised by the teapot case go far beyond the attempt of a cameraman to hurry a matter along so that he could keep alive a freelance career that had been interrupted by the PM’s response to actions he took, in what appear good faith.
At any time, and particularly in the middle of an election campaign, the Government has a duty to answer legal challenges to its authority and not bill citizens for making them. The request for an order of costs should be withdrawn.January 1, 2012 at 10:32 am #732951
JoybelMemberMember since: November 2, 2006
No wonder so many get digestive problems in old age. This cage has been rattling for weeks now and the door is so hard to unpaddlock. But for the life of me what the fuss is about I have no idea. The cost is becoming more than the saga is worth. We have more important happenings to be concerned about. Is the Labour Party jumping up and down or it their Members who lost the race and need a sacrifice to appease their disappointment.
Was a law broken? Was the cup of tea an illegal meeting between two parties? Did the reporter just happen to be there or was he already in the know. Eavesdroppers never hear good about themselves, so the saying goes and this happened. Who knows how many sneaky deals are done at election time.
Even Tape recordings are not permissible as evidence as they are easily tampered with. So even if Winston is dangling them with his usual ‘All will be revealed, when I say so” amateur dramatics what is hoped to be achieved. If you are hoping for the election to be declared null and void then be careful as you may get what you wish for and then what could happen?January 1, 2012 at 10:48 am #732953
BryanMemberMember since: October 28, 2006
Yes Joybel, there’s an old saying “Be careful what you wish for, because it may come back and bite you on the bum!” 😯January 1, 2012 at 10:51 am #732955
doogieMemberMember since: March 27, 2006
Good words Joybel,
Regardless of what happened before the election the current government was elected on balance of their performance to that date
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.