Unethical vs Illegal

August 31st, 2006 at 1:30 pm by David Farrar

Taito Phillip Field has claimed he has done nothing illegal, and with the Police now inquiring into this, he has been stood down.

But the issue has never been one of legality as much as ethics. The criminal code is the bare minimum standards for society. For MPs we expect behaviour well beyond that. Let me illustrate with some examples:

* A (for example) National MP could refuse to help any constituents who are not members of the National Party. This would be 100% legal, yet also deplorable and one would expect the party leadership to come down like a tonne of bricks on any MP who acted in such a way.

* Closer to home, there is nothing at all illegal about immigrants who gained residency through an MP, to choose to paint homes for him as a show of gratitude. It is grossly unethical for an MP to allow them to do that, but it is not illegal.

* An MP could refuse to speak to any rotary clubs unless they pay him or her $1,000 speakers fee. Quite legal but unethical.

* An MP can quite legally accept $100 donations for her political party, from constituents whom he is helping. Again grotesque but not illegal.

* An MP can seduce the 19 year old daughter of a constituent who comes to him to help, and then also sleep with the 17 year old teenage daughter and not break the law in any way, yet be regarded as acting unethically.

* An MP can lie to a QC, and not have broken the law, as the QC was not given the power to require testimony under oath.

* An MP can ring up constituents and pressure them to shut up, and this is not against the law.

* An MP can lie to his Ministerial colleagues in order to get immigration visas approved, yet this is not illegal – only grossly unethical.

The vast majority of what Field has been accused of is not illegal behaviour. While any potentially criminal behaviour such as forged birth certificates should be investigated by the Police, this in no way negates the necessity to have a proper investigation into the ethical behaviour.

And can do this at any time by either giving leave for the Privileges Committee to investigate, or setting up a proper Commission of Inquiry.

NB: Note that some of the examples above are just that – examples – and it is not suggested one MP has done all the above.

Tags:

60 Responses to “Unethical vs Illegal”

  1. tim barclay () says:

    They can kick for touch now. The Police got the green light on MOnday from her that they were free to act so they will not. And he has been stood down from Parliament (but the Labour Party still pockets his vote). She deliberately set up the Ingram inquiry to stall things as much as possible. She knew it was going to be inconclusive, that is why Commissions of Inquiry have the powers they have so they can get to the truth. Ingram never had a snowball’s chance in hell of doing that. She knew that too. So she bought 12 months. But its virulence must be surprising her for a so called “beltway” issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Danyl Mclauchlan () says:

    You must be more than delighted to see Labour being haunted by the ghost of scandals past.

    I can’t help but suspect that Phillip-Field has spent the past two days sweetly, patiently and reasonably explaining to Mike Williams that he sees no reason why he should step aside in the absence of any proven criminal wrongdoing when none of the previous half-dozen or so scandal-struck Labour MPs have ever been in question of losing their seats . . .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. gd () says:

    For those who have been commenting on the difference between the legal and the moral and ethical this is a case of I told you so.For months now most have totally missed the point.Blathering on about “But is all legal” will eventually cut no ice when the immoral and unethical aspects are plain to see.In too many areas of life in NZ we see a nasty dark attitude of dog eat dog The irony is when the tables are turned the loudest bleating comes from the worst protaganists.they can dish out the shit but they sure as hell cant take it.Like bullies they are also cowards.Well the tables are turning on the shitheads and now is the time for sweet revenge for some.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. noddy () says:

    David, hard to disagree with any of that. However, there *is* no code of conduct for MPs nor does National or Labour seem to support one being introduced. To me that is pathetic.

    Seems to me, you are preparing the ground for a police enquiry that decides not to prosecute but you can still claim wrongdoing. Does that mean that Lockwood-Smith’s evidence is maybe not as compelling as has been suggested?

    So now, if the police do not prosecute there will be howls of foul play again. God, what a yawn that will be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Red () says:

    David you and I know there is no such thing as an objective view on what is ethical and what is not.

    We have laws to codfiy what is right/wrong so we all know what society thinks is acceptable…

    There is no code of conduct for MP’s and National are not supporting one.

    In the absence of a code or law are you asking us to accept the National party view on ethics? The National party may be correct in it’s view but surely it would be unethical to accept nationals judgement on this given that they clearly have ulterior motives (just as labour do) when it comes to forcing a government MP out when that government has a one seat majority.

    I know National do not accept the results of the last election and want another go at it and this is what it’s about. maybe if National were honest about this (who really thinks National are doing this becase they care about Thai overstayers??) then Labour could get rid of him.

    If National were really honestly concerned about the integrity of parliment and all that they would go on the news and say look this field person is bad news, Labour are stuck with him. If Labour get rid of him we won’t use this as an opportunity to bring down the government because on MP’s behaviour shouldnt be used in that manner. As others have mentioned in other threads this would actulley be good for National.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. gooner () says:

    DPF, these scenarios could well be considered unlawful:

    “An MP can ring up constituents and pressure them to shut up, and this is not against the law.”

    “An MP can seduce the 19 year old daughter of a constituent who comes to him to help, and then also sleep with the 17 year old teenage daughter and not break the law in any way, yet be regarded as acting unethically”.

    But I get your point.

    I wonder what would have happened had the poll not come out the way it did today. Broad had the complaint on Tuesday. He waited until today to confirm an investigation. Would there have been an investigation had the poll shown Labour in front?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Insolent Prick () says:

    Quote from Helen Clark at the release of the Ingram Report:

    “Mr Ingram was asked to enquire into whether any conflict existed between Mr Field’s duties as a minister and his private interests.

    “Mr Ingram has concluded that there was not such a conflict of interest. He reports that Mr Field was at all times co-operative with the inquiry.”

    Oh how times change when the public doesn’t accept her original spin!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Red () says:

    IP – You are quite amusing sometimes. There is no spin there, she is reporting exsactlly what the report said. Mr Ingram found there was no conflict of intrest.

    Notice how she didn’t give her view or talk about his role as an MP.

    There is no spin here at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. SPC () says:

    Despite some of Nationals claims on this, mein host is quite right to retain focus on the ethical side of this. Both in principle and strategically. There is a fair chance no illegality has occured.

    The issue is misjudgment (for which he has apologised)

    The matter of cash donations

    is between the MP and his party is over internal accounting of cash donations and between himself and IRD if he retained any of the cash (if he did, it’s illegal to not declare the money and he would have to resign).

    But there is no wrong doing as to the receipt of donations to parties from consituents, just as there is not after some business man on a large directors salary finds Nationals tax package personally attractive.

    It’s only in the asking for donations in return for services that the corruption occurs.

    The matter of koha labour done in New Zealand on housing (increasing his personal asset wealth here), I don’t think this will be an IRD issue as applies to the general public (we can offer each other free labour koha without IRD responsibilites), it’s more a case of MP standards.

    He has been “found” to have “appeared” to breach ministerial standards.

    An MP should have valued koha labour in Enzed at “wage rates” and paid a cash donation equivalent to the party. Otherwise he has benefited personally from his services as an MP. This area is a murky one of appropriate accounting and auditing (he probably has made personal donations to the party, more so less so or equivalent to his free labour koha) and this is where he has shown misjudgment (allowed the matters to arise).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. toms () says:

    Whoa… David Farrar, leading bayer in the slavering pack of hypocrits that is the National Party, poster of a series of outraged stories on the iillegalities of Mr. Field, when confronted with a police investigation that is almost certainly going to find no illegal behaviour, suddenly changes the National party spin to talk about ethics????

    I suppose the National parties patronising dislike of the brown vote that kept them and from power at the last election always meant they would target an MP representing those people as an act of political revenge.

    More pious hypocricy from David Farrar.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Peter Metcalfe () says:

    Gooner,

    How is it unlawful to sleep with a 19 and 17 year old? The age of consent is 16.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Fred () says:

    Meanwhile 200 HIV positive Zimbabwean immigrants demonstrate the latest advantages of overpopulation and statist triumph.
    More failed cultures to validate Hulun’s loathing.
    Why do we allow it when a referenduum would stop it instantly?
    Don’t ask the people, you’ll get the wrong answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. sonic () says:

    Yes Fred lets send them back to certain death, that is the Kiwi way after all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Gooner () says:

    Peter, I read into that scenario some hint of coercion: constituent comes for help, MP says sure, as long as I get to shag your daughter.

    My reading of it could be wrong though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. David Farrar () says:

    Those who claim there is no clear view on what is ethically right for MPs are talking nonsense. One does not need a code to know what is right.

    Not even Field is trying to claim that the some of the above behaviours are acceptable. He is merely denying that they ever happened – and as they are not matters of criminality there is no way to determine the truth unless Clark acts.

    Toms meanwhile needs to take his medicine.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Merv () says:

    I’m with Fred – ship them home. It is Zimbabwe’s problem that we have let become our problem. Nip this whole thing in the bud while we can

    Call me a racist or a bigot I don’t care – but a importing a 15% increase in the number of people with HIV into the country is plain stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Craig Ranapia () says:

    Toms doesn’t only need to take his pills, but a reality check on his own patronising racism might be in order. Is big white daddy Tom seriously arguing that blackfellas in public life can’t hack the same level of scrutiny and criticism as the honky man? Piss off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. sonic () says:

    And they are black Merv, don’t forget to mention that!

    “Call me a racist or a bigot I don’t care”

    Mind if we just think it?

    xxx

    S

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. lyndon () says:

    All very well. But who would decide? Who should decide? I’m not convinced that the priviledges committee is the place in terms of jurisdiction or natural justice, and I presume a Commission of Inquiry doesn’t hand out sentences.

    The Party probably should investigate [accussed people] but someone also has to stand up for [the accused].

    I know it’s complicated hugely by party lists, but I had though the device for dealing with non-illegal wrongdoing by MPs was called an ‘election’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Graeme Edgeler () says:

    “(for example) National MP could refuse to help any constituents who are not members of the National Party. This would be 100% legal…”

    I’m not so sure – discrimination on the basis of political belief is unlawful under the Human Rights Act 1993 (and there’s probably an area of discrimination one could fit it in)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Red () says:

    It might be obvious to you David, after all you and the National party have a monopoly on “common sense” which means as long as enough people believe something it must be true!

    The National party want to investigate field through the privileges committee e.g. they want to investigate him themselves. I know you love the national party David but surely the part of you the belives is fairness and justice knows thats a very bad idea.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Camryn () says:

    TomS – You’re being very disingenious.

    1. DPF has never focused on the legal side. He has always been more concerned with the ethics and the damage to the office. This whole debate has been about ethics.

    2. National has no dislike of any voter based on their race. National doesn’t ‘dislike’ any voter. It just has a different vision on how to create a successful society for us all. Don’t be so hysterical. If race comes into this, then it’s Mr Field that’s cynically taking advantage of any feeling that ‘they’re just picking on a brown guy’ to bolster his bid to stay on the gravy train.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. gd () says:

    Good grief Any denial that there is no such thing as a code of ethics is unbeliveable. Maybe some of you should take a deep breath and consider that most professions ( please try and reframe from the usual snide stupid remarks about each one) have a Code ( most bodies have them posted on their website)The irony has not been lost that some MPs including Socialists are members of professional bodies and have therefore signed up to these codes.As breaches are not a matter of law it doesnt matter where a breach occurs ( inside or outside the House) its still a breach.The fact that Parliament hasnt adopted a Code shows how out of step it is ( other Parliamments have done so) Codes are by their nature non prescriptive to stop the lawyers finding ways around them.It all comes down to the individual and that individuals behaviour and whether or not it breaches the spirit of the Code.Of course for the truly immoral and unethical such Codes dont matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Fred () says:

    More logic to take ya breath right away…sonic forgot about the rest of the tens of millions of Africans with no possible HIV outcome except death.
    And Romanians and Haitians and ad infinitum…..
    Let’s bring them here, after all it’s their right according to Hulun and the UN.
    We can pay for them while appreciating Hulun’s plan to destroy our guilty existing lifestyle, all for our own good as defined by our political betters of course.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. lyndon () says:

    Much as I hate to encourage thread hijacking – I believe National (and I think some others) was at least not opposed to giving these Zimbabweans special treatment in the first place. Notice how little noise they’re making now.

    Anyway, now we have them, best to find out if they’re sick or not, yes?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. lyndon () says:

    By ‘them’ in that last sentence I mean the Zimbabweans. National can take care of themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Ross Miller () says:

    interesting debate that somewhat misses the point that ‘Dear Leader’ has been taught a salutory lesson in that she cannot control everything all of time. In fact, her own crebility over the handling of this whole sorry affair is about zip/zero … and going south.

    Lesson 1. Decent Kiwis living outside the ‘Beltway’ (her words) DO know and care and
    61.3% are giving their collective ‘We’ve had enough’ salutes to Labour. Have said this before and repeat … Michael Joseph S (and my Dad) will be turning in their graves seeing the moral disintegration of this once great Party.

    Lesson 2. Chickens and roost comes to mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Ross Miller () says:

    interesting debate that somewhat misses the point that ‘Dear Leader’ has been taught a salutory lesson in that she cannot control everything all of the time. In fact, her own crebility over the handling of this whole sorry affair is about zip/zero … and going south.

    Lesson 1. Decent Kiwis living outside the ‘Beltway’ (her words) DO know and care and
    61.3% are giving their collective ‘We’ve had enough’ salutes to Labour. Have said this before and repeat … Michael Joseph S (and my Dad) will be turning in their graves seeing the moral disintegration of this once great Party.

    Lesson 2. Chickens and roost comes to mind.

    Finally, have just heard that the policemen that she ‘courageously’ hung out to try over her speeding to a rugby game that she was not really interested in have had their appeal upheld. Justice done.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. noddy () says:

    gd, no denial here. I just don’t happen to believe DPF or Nation are in a position to be arbitors. Seems National agree because they are not supporting the introcuction of said code to parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Nominal () says:

    What cracks me up is the spin that TPF “Welcomes” the police inquiry and Ms Clark also “Welcomes” the inquiry. I bet that was the first thought they each had on the confirmation. Yeah right!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. SPC () says:

    But mein host, while there is no disagreement about there being ethical standards for MP’s as well as Ministers (not as rigourous and perhaps even Emore so for AG), what these standards are, is not so clear.

    The common one for officials (and MP’s), no payment for services, is well known. But people helped can make donations to the MP’s party (of course this is not expected or required, especially as this MP service is available to all regardless of creed, race religion etc).

    DPF
    “Not even Field is trying to claim that the some of the above behaviours are acceptable.”

    He has admitted misjudgment, apologised for it and learnt from it.

    “He is merely denying that they ever happened -and as they are not matters of criminality there is no way to determine the truth unless Clark acts.”

    Are you really claiming that what you posted in the thread starter applies to him? I suggest you might want to clarify yourself.

    A more genral comment, it’s wrong for those making the accusations to declare the judgement and sentence – they need to respect due process. The whole concept of trial by media is flawed, if partisans get the opposition form of hubris (think they can do/say what they like and get away with it).

    The thing about accountability is that it applies to everybody.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. SPC () says:

    In Field’s case he is answerable for any criminal wrongdoing to the courts (who knows)

    For parliamentary wrongdoing answerable to Privileges (not found so)

    For electorate MP wrongdoing, answerable to his electorate and to his party.

    One answer is for Labour to not re-stand him in 2008 and to allow the electorate to decide on whether he stays until then. Another is to allow the electorate to decide first and Labour to decide on the later afterwards.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Mike Readman () says:

    Tui Billboard:

    Helen Clark:

    “I did not order the police to investigate Phillip Field right now to get myself out of trouble for a while.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Merv () says:

    Sonic

    So am I ….. (well a fairly dark brown anyway) …. not that that has anything to do with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. SPC () says:

    It takes the issue down a level, but it’s National which raised the issue of criminal investigation as much as Labour (National wants focus on another issue now).

    If Field is found answerable he may have to resign (resolves impasse) and if not, there is the year to re-selection in which he may say he will not re-stand.

    National has really used the case (otherwise somewhat in hope regarding the close House voting situation) to launch their real attack, a caricature of Labour as misusing office to gather funds for re-election (a mini MP me maxi group me).

    This as part of their portrayal of Labour using big government to attract support. Labour’s reply will be about maintaining an equal playing field in funding parties and electoral campaigns rather than allowing those with access to more party funding to buy democratic mandate like a commodity (as per American politics).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Insolent Prick () says:

    No, SPC.

    You still don’t get it.

    Field’s wrongdoings are very separate from Labour’s theft of taxpayer money to outspend everybody else during the campaign.

    Party funding is separate from party spending during a campaign.

    The public will not believe that Labour was justified in breaking the law “to ensure democracy”.

    You’re still a fucking loony if you think Labour will get away with stealing money and refusing to pay it back.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Ed Snack () says:

    Why bother with a police investigation, we already know the most likely outcome: that there is shown to be a prima facie case to answer, but it wouldn’t be in the “public interest” to prosecute. After all, it has worked for Helen before, numerous times.

    Anyone like a wager on that being the actual result, perhaps David might like to set up another syndicate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. SPC () says:

    Shall I count up the number of strawman arguements in that one post IP?

    “Field’s wrongdoings are very separate from Labour’s theft of taxpayer money to outspend everybody else during the campaign.”

    The personnel and actions are not the same and where did I say they were?

    I refer you to the fact that Don Brash drew a link between the two matters on Close Up. Keep in step with you leader IP.

    “Party funding is separate from party spending during a campaign.”

    Quite and this is something I have been stressing in debates with nigel (which you made no comment on). National outspent Labour in the non campaign period in 2005.

    “The public will not believe that Labour was justified in breaking the law” “to ensure democracy”.

    Comment about the need to ensure that greater ability to access party funding and campaign finance does not enable democratic mandate to be purchased like a commodity, is not an apology for past events, but a way to prevent their occurence in future. What about that don’t you “want to” understand.

    “You’re still a fucking loony if you think Labour will get away with stealing money and refusing to pay it back.”

    You don’t determine who is convicted for theft and what the sentence is. You just support partisan allegations and resort to ad hominem attacks when you feel unable to debate with an “equal”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Logix () says:

    The distinction between illegal and unethical rests on the notion of “intent”, or as was put to us a few thousand years ago, the difference between “the letter of the law, and it’s spirit”.

    The recent allegations that have come to light demand a proper investigation, and everyone has welcomed that. If Feild is sincere in his protestations of innocence, then any person in his position would of course be glad of the opportunity to have an authoritative third party examine and hopefully clear his name. Until this investigation has concluded, then all we have is allegations. But even Brash has backtracked, now stating the obvious that Field has probably not broken any laws. (Well I am sure if the investigation turns into a fishing expedition, then something will turn up in the net.)

    The point is that the allegations will need to be justified in fact before they have any significance. After that it is most likely to become a question of “ethics”.

    Written codes of law are subject to wide interpretation, which is why we have Courts and a legal profession. Ethical principles are generally not even codified, and are even more subject to interpretation than laws. In fact we deliberately do not write down fixed codes of ethics except in very specific contexts, eg, within the narrow boundaries of professional conduct.

    The likely outcome of the police investigation is going to be more sincere protestations from Field that he has been “exonerated” and more outrage from the right that he is corrupt scum. The ultimate authority in a democracy will be the electorate. What then if the Samoan electorate (and let me assume that nothing more damaging comes to light) decide that within the context of their ethical values, Field has done nothing wrong and return him to Parliament? Would the Opposition be content with that verdict?

    Ethical judgements pivot on intent and context, rather than rules or policies. I have posed elsewhere the same question in relation to the “election spending” debacle. Just how ethical is it for instance that National, who managed to out-spend and out-campaign everyone else in the 2005 Election by a wide margin, and yet contrived to stay just with the rules (setting aside the small GST question), how ethical is it for them to be then accusing Labour of illegal expenditure? The intent and purpose of the electoral law is to ensure that one party does not set about dominating the democratic process by sheer application of funds. This is exactly what the right-wing attempted to do in the 2005 election….they attempted to buy it with a wall of cash. Yes they contrived to stick within the strict letter of the rules….but can they really claim to have abided by the spirit and intent of the law?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Murray () says:

    Isn’t therer auto disqualification for using “ad hominem” in a comment.

    There’s also more consequences than being sent to jail. Swan diving polls for example.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. SPC () says:

    Murray were you a character on Mary Tyler Moore?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Rumpole () says:

    Logix
    You said – “the ultimate authority in a democracy will be the electorate. What then if the Samoan electorate (and let me assume that nothing more damaging comes to light) decide that within the context of their ethical values, Field has done nothing wrong and return him to Parliament Would the Opposition be content with that verdict?” It is not about one particular electorate deciding to support their man whatever, it is if the electors generally accept that the ethical value is OK. The court of public opinion is an election and the defect in the system is the delay between the event and the vote which gives the govt of the day time to spin and divert opinion which is the real corruption. Until we have a more timely link between the event and politicians receiving the electors decision Polys will continue their well trodden course of spin. Perhaps binding referendums will become a vehicle of the required consultation process.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. SPC () says:

    IMO once the police investigation clears him, Field will go to a by-election and seek forgiveness for his misjudgments. He will then serve out the last two years of the government term.

    A year after the by-election, Labour will select another candidate after Field chooses not to re-stand.

    The main act in this drama is otherwise. The use of money for cards (Darnton case as part of this), the the overspending and any liabilty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. burt () says:

    So who reckons that recent Labour fundraising is to build a war chest for the Darnton case?

    Nothing to do with the next elections at all, unless of course the two are tightly related?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. SPC () says:

    The outcome of the Darnton case will have an impact on future legislation, the future legislation will have impact on party funding and campaigning in 2008. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Paul Marsden () says:

    Its finally official. HC has now being effectively elevated above, and beyond the law. All of the motor vehicle drivers in her speeding entourage, have now been acquitted. Standy now to be subject to all her platitudes about how relieved she is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Redbaiter () says:

    The sneaking cowardly fake “Logix/Blueballs” using words like ‘ethical’ and ‘sincere’ and with a closing analysis so deceitful and contrived as to be nauseating. Leftists are just so hollow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. SPC () says:

    The “drivers” were just following orders line worked, given in some scenarios those orders are legal, they had no reason to presume they were illegal, thus carried them out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Paul Marsden () says:

    SPC. You are an insult to my intelligence and the majority of my fellow countrymen .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Blueballs () says:

    Full of whining bluster tonight Redbaiter aren’t we? Blowhards like you are all hat and no cattle, who toss off dribbles and little spurts of pathetic crap onto their keyboards, that no importance except in your own deluded imaginings. Fakery is all you know, contrived nauseating outrage that starts with words, and ends with words, but never any actual action that might fill up the emptiness inside. I vomit in your direction.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. SPC () says:

    Paul, if you are to attempt to insult others, please try not to confuse yourself or presume to speak on behalf of others (who truly would find that insulting :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Paul Marsden () says:

    SPC. Trust me. I am not confused. I am not insulting others. I am expressing my personal opinion which I would publicly pitch against yours, any time. What is your background? How do you contribute to the economic wealth of this country?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. SPC () says:

    Why would I trust you? You claim to be expressing a personal opinion and yet confuse this with speaking on behalf of others. You claim an opinion you probably don’t even understand, insults your intelligence. I have yet to discover whether your use of this word, in relationship to yourself, is a deliberate sned up or not.

    The “drivers” were just following orders line worked, given in some scenarios those orders are legal, they had no reason to presume they were illegal, thus carried them out.

    If there are any parts of this you need help understanding, just ask. Others may be able to help you.

    A clue, this was their court defence and it was successful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. burt () says:

    Hurry hurry or I’ll miss the Rugby.

    A starter for 10 SPC – Who’s ‘actual’ words were they ???

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. SPC () says:

    burt the PM did not speak to any of the drivers – an aide says “we” would like to get this flight. A commander not an aide, then enables this. The police drivers may have had no idea why they have are to speed. Thus no appreciation of any illegality – the rules of engagement have since been clarified as another thread rightly notes.

    The situation was little different to another public service VIP driver going through traffic lights on another island to get the same game.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. culma () says:

    SPC – you can’t be that stupid, “we would like to get this flight” says you.
    Airport 200 kms away one hour to get there and the fucking PM knows nothing about it, what a load of shit.
    No difference between Clark’s lie here and Don Brash knowing or not knowing what the Brethies were up to.

    If you are going to tell a fairy tale start with once upon a time, this way we all know to turn off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. SPC () says:

    Are you a complete moron burt? The PM would use an aide and make the request in that way.

    The commander would either arrange for the drivers to speed, or say I cannot achieve this, because we would have to speed.

    Obviously those without the sophistication to understand how these things are done, would have to be led by their prejudice into some illusionary view of it all.

    VIP’s are used to people doing them favours, they don;t order, they express what they want. Others do the implementing – it’s called leadership use of flunkies (delegation). Of course she knew it would involve speeding but she would not have ordered it. Just expected and got a favour.

    WSFHTU moron?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. SPC () says:

    I of course withdraw the gratuitous repetition of the word moron.

    But, what’s so (F) hard to understand?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Jimbob () says:

    Is it ethical to hotly pursue the Taito Phillip Field issue based on the motive of seeking some sort of a political advantage?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. rightkiwi () says:

    very good post. it should be sent to all nat MPs. they must not make this issue about criminal wrongdoing. it is about ethics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.