DBP lied to the PM also
It had been reported that the PM only learnt on Wednesday that DBP had told Hugh Logan that he was unlikely to have full and frank discussions with the Ministry if Setchell was kept on.
Now I assumed after questions in the House suggesting he had said he would not have her in his office, that DBP thought it was a good idea to let the PM know of that detail. Or maybe that the PM had asked DBP whether there was anything additional.
But it seems that he never fessed up voluntarily. The SSC informed Clark on Wednesday of his comments, and she then called in him to say he needs to tell the truth (this time) in the House as otherwise the comments would come via the SSC at some stage.
But get this – even though he sat down on Monday with the PM and her colleagues, and lied to them about what he said. That was not a sackable offence. It was only after the House on Thursday when the press gallery starting to state they had been lied to, that she decided he had to go.
So the moral of the story – you don’t get sacked for lying. You get sacked for being caught out by the media in a lie.
July 31st, 2007 at 9:25 am
So the moral of the story – you don’t get sacked for lying. You get sacked for being caught out by the media in a lie.
Or, to put it in other words, you get sacked only when it is to your leader’s political benefit.
July 31st, 2007 at 9:48 am
The whole matter goes deeper than this. It is the implications that we have to consider.
“Alice” on this website threw the cat among the pidgeons, when she set down on this website, the true nature of the appointment that Setchell
undertook.
Hugh Logan allegedly misreported the importance of the position.
Hugh Logan is an Official in the Service of the Crown and as such he comes under alleged breach of the Crimes Act 1961, as he allsegedly used his position to advantage (someone?) to the disadvantage of Setchell. He exaggerated the importance of the position and surmised a set of circumstances that were ever likely to have arisen. This cost Setchell her job?
In my view the case runs parallel to the casr of MP Taito Philip Field, a Servant of the Crown, who allegedly advantaged his own position to the disadvantage of others.
July 31st, 2007 at 10:03 am
One can only imagine the scheming and the deceit and the dishonesty that prevails at the Helen Klark led Labour party meetings. What a bunch of immoral power obsessed scumbags they all are. That they put the care of this country in the hands of such repugnant lowlife is something that NZers will regret for a long time.
July 31st, 2007 at 10:08 am
Yes Frank but by now you should know that good morals ethics and the law dont apply to members of the government or the civil service when retaining power is so much more important. Bad governance has been a hallmark of the Socialists for the past 8 years. They have succeeded in destroying the best principles of the Westmintser style of parliamentary democracy. They have torn asunder the fabric of a decent and just society all in the name of retaining power. The judicary and the Law Society have stood by and said nothing in the face of an unrelenting assault on the underlying bedrock that used to form our society. Evil thrives when good men and women stand silent.
July 31st, 2007 at 10:31 am
Meanwhile the focus is fixed on DBP being lying assed dog which is hardly news and the issue of political selection of public service staff is quietly forgotten.
As Helen intended.
July 31st, 2007 at 10:38 am
Will Helen in future continue to side step answers in Parliament by saying it is a Convention of the House that the word of a Minister is accepted as the truth? How many lying Ministers will it take to change this stupidity?
July 31st, 2007 at 10:50 am
I think you’re going to need HONEST ministers to change it Sofia.
The liars seem quite comfortable with it as it is.
July 31st, 2007 at 11:01 am
DPF, what was worse was that after caucus on Monday when DPB denied the truth, he then went and did individual interviews the same day to key media personnel, telling them to read the SSC report – because he knew that it did not have the “free and frank” comments.
Do you think he would have said the same things in an interview two days later when he was are that Clark knew about the comments?
In Labour, you have to lie well. As long as you tell lies in the Labour -honoured way, you will not lose your job. Benson -Pope simply failed to follow Labour principles on how to lie. That is why Helen Clark hung a noose round Benson Popes neck and it was tightened during Q6 last Thursdays question time.
Benson-Pope should have taken lie lessons from Damian O`Connor.
July 31st, 2007 at 11:19 am
“So the moral of the story – you don’t get sacked for lying. You get sacked for being caught out by the media in a lie.”
Um, yeah – it’s called politics. You know decisions are made about what’s best for the common good of the party …. BTW I’m told that this whole fiasco isn’t as simple as it appears on the serface. Suffice to say that DBP was actually in a very difficult position that wasn’t all his own making. Will be back with more details later.
July 31st, 2007 at 11:29 am
A lying politician. Will I ever get over the shock?
I notice that there must be different levels of lying though.
At one level lying loses you a cabinet post, ( or at least being caught does)but the same lie isn’t enough for you to lose your status as an MP.
Is there a guide to MP’s somewhere that tells them what these different levels/standards are?
July 31st, 2007 at 11:37 am
If she started sacking for lying, she would be the first to go. There’s another lesson for you: how can you sack someone for lying if you’re a forger yourself?
July 31st, 2007 at 11:45 am
This behavior is entirely in character. It was obvious from the start that Benson-Pope had lied to everyone. He does not have the type of character to be in a top position like a Minister. There are plenty more in the Labour Party where he came from.
July 31st, 2007 at 11:48 am
roger.
What are these details of the Benson-Pope saga? As all the participants in this issue are either elected or public appointments surely we, as the voters and taxpayers are entitled to know all the details?
July 31st, 2007 at 11:50 am
For Roger Nome … just holding off your next posting pending receipt of instructions from the Beehive about the line to be taken?
July 31st, 2007 at 12:04 pm
gd; I am fully aware the law doesn’t apply to members of the government or the civil service, when retaining power is so much more important.
You say “Evil thrives when good men and women stand silent”. This implies
that with the deafening silence coming from other Members of Parliament that these people are threrfore GOOD. Name one MP who can be classed as Good.
I contend that evil begets evil, and that, in this enlightened day and age, we need a new perspective of ths so called “silent” good in Parliament.
Silence by Members of Parliament with the alleged knowledge of alleged crimes perpetrated by Members of Parliament, in my book are preventing and defeating the course of Justice. This needs to be tested
Murray: You say “you’re going to need HONEST ministers to change it Sofia”
We need to have HONEST parliamentarians first.
You may be pleased to know that a complaint of mine will be in the Post today to Police Commissioner Howard Broad:
” Hugh Logan, in the Service of the Crown has allegedly used his position to disadvantage Madeline Setchell also in the Service of the Crown”
This will test my hypothesis?
July 31st, 2007 at 12:13 pm
I still think that now the DPB thing is sorted we need to address a much greater issue, which is that apparently the PM thinks our state service is just an extension of her ministerial staff.
The line between them seems to have been well and truely stepped (should I say stampeded) over.
The logical conclusion of this is that if ever you get off side with them they can essentially destroy you using the state apparatus. Certainly happened in other socialist countries and you can smell it in the air over here.
HC still won’t comment on whether Setchell should have been given the job.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Frank You and I are at one on this matter. But doesnt make you puke when you see the Socialist supporters here and elsewhere attempting to defend the indefensible. And what really makes me laugh at them is when the same happens to them they go off into space. Like all arseholes and arseholesses they can dish it out but they cant take it back. Clark and her cronies are gutless weak willed morons that use their position power against the good citizens and to benefit the bad citizens.
The end of them cant come quicker enough
July 31st, 2007 at 1:14 pm
I neeed not remind you of your time in the beehive when Jenny Shipley was not not telling PARLIAMENT the whole truth.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Lynne Pillay Chairperson, Justice and Electoral Committee was being quizzed a few minutes ago on how she could justify her proposed overseas junket from which 3 National Party Members withdrew.
In the course of the interview she drew attention to the proposed Electoral Finance Bill due before her Select Committee. She talked about the proposed Bill as bringing Transparency and Integrity to the Election.
This would be the laugh of the year, when it does nothing other than bring the election process and Parliament itself into disrepute
July 31st, 2007 at 1:22 pm
FFS Selma – you’re like a scratched record!
July 31st, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Selma … and to state the obivious. Jenny Shipley paid big time for that. And what goes around comes around. Enjoy.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Selma said “I neeed not remind you of your time in the beehive when Jenny Shipley was not not telling PARLIAMENT the whole truth.”
Whatever Selma. Need I remind you of 1972 when Norm Kirk said at the opening of the election campaign in Palmy North (I was there!) “We won’t mix politics with sport” – then promptly cancelled the 1973 Springbok tour?
The issue here is NOT lies told in the last century – the issue is the lies told by a high-ranking cabinet minister in the current government. Benson-Pope lied to Parliament, to his Labour colleagues, to the media, and to the public. That is bad enough, but under the current administration, seemingly not a “hanging offence”. However, getting caught, dropping Dear Leader in it, and looking bad – that’s a different story altogether! That’s when the phone call from H2 is made.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:33 pm
My goodness, something just occurred to me. It seems we’ve all assumed that either the Environment Ministry or Benson-Pope’s office. But what if it was “friendly fire” from the 9th Floor? Is it at all conceivable that Dear Leader’s office told Gerry what question to ask on Thursday, and told B-P he had to answer truthfully? After all, Dear Leader has admitted she knew on Wednesday night. Is Helen that conniving? Mike Moore thinks so……
July 31st, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Selma – are you saying that Jenny Shipley also lied/denied in Parliament about stuffing tennisballs in kids mouths, perving at schoolgirls in their nighties, belonging to a B&D club, and arranging for Madeline Setchell to be sacked?
Helen will be straight (!) on the phone to her, offering her a cabinet position if your allegations are true!
July 31st, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Is there any truth to the rumor that when John Key becomes the next Prime Minister of New Zealand that Selma will burst into flames?
July 31st, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Just thought I’d lighten the mood a little. Explains a bit about “red” psychology too.
Economic Models explained with cows- 2007 update
SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbour.
COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk.
FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk.
NAZISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and shoots you.
BUREAUCRATISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the
milk away…
TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.
Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.
You sell them and retire on the income.
SURREALISM
You have two giraffes.
The government requires you to take harmonica lessons
AN AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows.
Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why the cow has dropped dead.
ENRON VENTURE CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of
credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a
debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all
four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows.
The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a
Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who
sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.
The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on
one more.
You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving
you with nine cows.
No balance sheet provided with the release.
The public then buys your bull.
THE ANDERSEN MODEL
You have two cows.
You shred them.
A FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike, organise a riot, and block the roads, because you want
three cows.
A JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and
produce twenty times the milk.
You then create a clever cow cartoon image called ‘Cowkimon’ and market
it worldwide.
A GERMAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and
milk themselves.
AN ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows, but you don’t know where they are.
You decide to have lunch.
A RUSSIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You count them and learn you have five cows.
You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.
You count them again and learn you have 2 cows.
You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.
A SWISS CORPORATION
You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you.
You charge the owners for storing them.
A CHINESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have 300 people milking them.
You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity.
You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.
AN INDIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You worship them.
A BRITISH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Both are mad.
AN IRAQI CORPORATION
Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.
You tell them that you have none.
No-one believes you, so they bomb the **** out of you and invade your
country.
You still have no cows, but at least now you are part of a Democracy….
A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Business seems pretty good.
You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.
AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
The one on the left looks very attractive.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Don’t worry guys and gals, the rogered gnome will respond to Selma – “but it’s called politics sweetie, nothing to see here, move along please”
July 31st, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Ever noted that the worst thing a politician can level at another politician is to call them a liar. The temperature in the house goes white hot at the suggestion. The Speaker almost goes into cardiac arrest and retribution is quick. It just cannot be done. I guess it is probably stating the obvious and therefore wasting the time of the house.
Which brings me to Madam speaker. Shouldn’t she be very miffed that someone told porkies in her house. She gets very emotional at other less meaningful transgressions.
Perhaps she should haul DBP up and roundly chastise him for leading the house astray with his economic use of the truth.
When does hell freeze over?
July 31st, 2007 at 2:03 pm
“But get this – even though he sat down on Monday with the PM and her colleagues, and lied to them about what he said. That was not a sackable offence. It was only after the House on Thursday when the press gallery starting to state they had been lied to, that she decided he had to go.
So the moral of the story – you don’t get sacked for lying. You get sacked for being caught out by the media in a lie.”
DPB was never sacked – he resigned.
July 31st, 2007 at 2:14 pm
roger nome
“Um, yeah – it’s called politics. You know decisions are made about what’s best for the common good of the party “
Somewhere in there roger you seem to have forgotten that decisions should be based on what is best for the country. With your acceptance of put the party first it’s no surprise that nothing the labour party do will shake your support for a self serving and corrupt bunch of twits.
July 31st, 2007 at 2:15 pm
“DPB was never sacked – he resigned.”
ohahaha, oh my, hilarious, tears in my eyes, my side aches, no, please stop…hahahahahaha
July 31st, 2007 at 2:16 pm
DPB was never sacked – he resigned.
If you believe that then would you be interested in a bridge I’m currently selling?
July 31st, 2007 at 2:45 pm
If he was fired he’d have to fired from The Party and fired as an MP. Not only would he lose his pension? there would be an Election, no?
I thought lying to Parliament was a sackable offense?
July 31st, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Selma Bouvier: you can remind us all you like about jenny shipley’s silliness over kevin roberts. who cares? she’s not even in parliament anymore. john key is our leader.
July 31st, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Too dishonest to be in cabinet but not too dishonest to be an MP?
Please explain.
July 31st, 2007 at 3:25 pm
merc Where the hell did you get that crazy idea. This is New Zealand land of the best governance in the whole wide world Land of the most independent civil service in the world. Land of the best corproate governance in the world. the land where all politicans and civil servants are snow white and all company directors abide by the very best code of corproate compliance. Well thats what the Gumint the SSC and the IOD say so heh whose to not believe them.
July 31st, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Yes but…doesn’t BP’s demonstrable lying to Parliament (more than once) and his getting nothing for doing so (he resigned, he was not censured),
TOTALLY UNDERMINE THE SYSTEM?
July 31st, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Whats wrong in this whole DBP affair? No surprise, NZ is only reaping what NZ has sown. Teach and indoctrinate relativism to the population for decades (who have happily accepted it) and then expect people (in this case our leaders) to live as though they believed in absolute standards of right and wrong? Bunch of complaining hypocrites.
July 31st, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Rabbiting on about the long forgotten (by ma and pa voter that is) Shipley-Roberts incident demonstrates Selma’s (read 9th floor spin) desperateness on this issue
July 31st, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Selma
I thought we had been through this a few times. Do you remember my (somewhat confusing to you perhaps) suggestion that applying 5yr/old logic of He did it too is not a good standard to set for Ministers.
However I’ll play your game: Do you really think we should repeal the laws that make it illegal to mislead parliament ?
July 31st, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Maybe the number of times we rehash the DPB issue( is there really anything new that hasnt been said) means we have to go way back to how a different government did it (yes it was that long ago)
Glasshouses and all that.
Plus we all know where DPF was working at the time so its doubly effective.
Ive raised Nick Smiths integrity for a more recent issue. And we all know what happened to him (NOT).
Having 3 judges saying you cant lie straight in bed, sets an entirely new low.
[DPF:Nick Smith wanted to resign and have a byelection. Helen Clark insisted it was not necessary]
July 31st, 2007 at 7:23 pm
For full information on the gerrymandering that went on in the last election, and the gerrymandering that went on by the Police in their “Comprehensive Investigation” of the Electoral Commission’s complaint, I can thoroughly recommend the hugely impressive, chronoligically correct, unbiased report put together by David Farrar in his Electoral Act Archives on May 26 2006.
He had this to say at the conclusion of this unbelievably well researched Document:
“My contention here is that the Police reasoning and decisions in this case are not ones you could reasonably agree with. They have in fact made very basic mistakes throughout. They appear to have done almost no actual investigating or interviewing, and misled the public with their public release.”
However when you consider that on 10 February 2006 Acting Police Commissioner Steve Long received an allegation essentially that money had been stolen from Helen’s Leader Funds, and thaat they buried these allegations, then there are more sinister overtones. Who were the Police protecting? Would David Farrar, if he had known at the time of this allegation summed up the situation more strongly?
I ask you the reader, how can we trust a Select Committee to sort out Election processes in view of David’s report and the Police cover-up? Do you consider a Royal Commission of Inquiry is required?
I recall Fran O’Sullivan calling for one
July 31st, 2007 at 8:57 pm
DPB Selma?
Don’t you mean DBP?
Or is that one of those “Freudian slips” for which liarbore hacks [like DBP himself] is now so justly famous. A racing certainty that it’s the latter since I’m sure, my dear Selma, you have an intimate and lifelong relationship with the DPB – perhaps even to the point of obsession.
July 31st, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Well said Flashman! I’m sure that Selma went to the crisis meeting on the 9th Floor the other night, and she’s following H2’s “do whatever you can to hijack the blogs” instruction to the letter. I wonder what she really thinks about DB-P – do you think she secretly wishes he’d come round and butt in on HER in the shower?
July 31st, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Go easy on Selma
I think Selma is having some difficulty understanding the concept that the standards set in the past are not to be used as a measure stick today. It’s ironic that DB-P wasn’t prosecuted for stuffing tennis balls in kids mouths or allegedly slapping a girl who was having confidence issues abseiling because the standards back then were different to what we accept today. Standards are much higher today and we mustn’t judge the past by today.
Sad sad lefties, how can they be so morally and ethically bankrupt to never once see anything bad in the goings on of their masters.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Hmmm…
According to Helen Clark a parent that gives their child a light spank is a “right wing fundamentalist”, but a man who tortured schoolchildren with tennis balls and got his rocks off walking into the girls changing rooms has been a welcome member of her “government”.