Herald calls on Starship to give the money back

December 14th, 2007 at 7:54 am by David Farrar

Winston’s stunt may be backfiring. The Herald editorial is blunt:

The Starship children’s hospital should immediately return the cheque it has received from the New Zealand First Party. This money is public property.

Mr Peters has not technically broken the law but only because he has used his party’s votes in Parliament to help legalise the spending at the last election that the Auditor-General believes to be wrong. He has always disagreed with the Auditor-General’s ruling and had wanted to contest it in the courts. But he has dropped this action, he says, because he could not have gotten a decision before the election next year and did not want to face the election accused of refusing to pay back “stolen money”.

This claim that they could not have got a hearing in time is one media should treat with suspicion.  The Auditor-General ruled in the latter half of 2006.  I have not seen anything to suggest that one could not have got a court hearing within two years.  For example the lawsuit against the Electoral Finance Bill only has a six month wait for a hearing.

The other point to remember is that there was a lawsuit which would have tested whether the Auditor-General was correct.  Darnton vs Clark.  With regards to the Labour pledge card at least, this would have resulted in a court ruling whether or not the expenditure was legal.

NZ First voted to kill off the lawsuit, voting against an amendment that would have stopped the validating legislation retrospectively killing off the lawsuit.

Tags:

128 Responses to “Herald calls on Starship to give the money back”

  1. NZD.JPY (130 comments) says:

    To be honest I’m surprised that Fabio Peters is trying this on. I thought he was a smarter operator than this although I guess the test of his savvy will be to see if whoever the hell it is that keeps getting this muppet into parliament will do it again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. toms (299 comments) says:

    My God! The Herald’s editorial writers are embarking on a partisan, hectoring vendetta over electoral financing! Hold the phones!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 (852 comments) says:

    So a public institution receiving stolen money is ok is it then Tom?

    Is this public institution typically engaged in fundraising from the public?

    does it want its reputation tied to that of a charlatan grandstander?

    as the editorial says, a startlingly poor call by the management.

    Or is that simply the price of the CEO’s integrity? Bit of a shame really, I would have thought that starship’s reputation was worth a bit more than that?

    But I guess its the NZ way, sell your principles cheaply, and then wonder why noone believes you next time…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    My God! The Herald’s editorial writers are embarking on a partisan, hectoring vendetta over electoral financing! Hold the phones!

    And toms and stupid go together like a horse and carriage… While not going as far as calling on the Starship Foundation to refuse to accept the donation, even the Greens were on the record saying they thought that Winston was being more than a little disingenuous here. You know, the Greens who didn’t exactly agree with the A-G’s ruling, yet make a public commitment to pay back the money they were found to have used inappropriately and (eventually) did so without playing cute.

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

    The Press: http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4322978a24077.html calls it a cynical ploy & a cheap political stunt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    Winston is relying on the perception that anyone advocating that a 150k donation to a childrens’ hospital be returned less than 2 weeks out from christmas is some sort of scrooge.

    This is nothing but a well financed fishing expedition with taxpayer money. He must be hoping that National take the bait. To John Keys credit, he’s playing this quite well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. toms (299 comments) says:

    The point is, my hysterical gay friend, that no one cares a jot for the views of the Herald, except those who are already National party members (like you and DPF) or those John Birch society members (how do you square being a Maori and hanging out with this lot BTW?) who post on here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    And two other things to think about, toms:

    1) There are plenty of child health charities that would never, ever accept donations from liquor or tobacco companies as a matter of principle.

    2) Jeanette Fitzsimmons made another perfectly valid point on Morning Report yesterday. The Starship Foundation is one perfectly worthy charity among many, and deserves all the support it can get. But if the Greens (or any other party or individual MP) wrote them a cheque directly from their Parliamentary Services funds it would be obviously, blatantly illegal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    Thanks you, my hysterical white breeder left-wingnut friend. When you and the other sub-Standard boys trot out the drive-by race/fag-baiting ad hominem, you just prove that I own your sad little cracker arses.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. bwakile (757 comments) says:

    “My God! The Herald’s editorial writers are embarking on a partisan, hectoring vendetta over electoral financing! Hold the phones!”

    Which God is that toms

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    “There are plenty of child health charities that would never, ever accept donations from liquor or tobacco companies as a matter of principle.”

    I’m not sure about that.
    I see the cancer society has distanced itself from the Fanuary campaign women are raising funds through by letting their pubic hair grow over summer instead of waxing. Cancer society said the results that would be published on the Fanuary website would be porn and said no thank you.

    If the fanuary campaign goes ahead as has been announced, they will hand over the cheque which I suspect will be receipted and so much for the cancer societies morals.

    They don’t answer q’s about research anyway as a Hamiltom woman found out after asking some very indepth q,s. They are not a transparent org and I never donate to them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Inventory2 (10,337 comments) says:

    Toms – take your punishment like a man! This government has had an armchair ride from the MSM throughout its time in office – the tide only started to turn when the true degree of Labour’s deception was exposed by the AG after the last election. Admit it – Labour has made a complete and utter hash of the EFB – supposedly a “beltway issue” – but now likely to be Labour’s epitaph. Clark is no longer the “teflon PM” – far from being a “victim of my own success” sheand her government have become victims of their own arrogance and contempt for the public. And the fact that they have been propped up by lackeys such as Peters, Dunne and the Greens will be addressed at the polls next year – bring it on!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    I’m not sure about that.

    Fair caveat, because I’m pretty sure someone will come back to be and point out that a child health-related charity has taken money from (say) the Lion Foundation. But I still stand by my comment that many others wouldn’t accept funding from liquor or tobacco companies on ethical grounds.

    As for the Cancer Society reaction to the ‘Fanuary’ campaign – well, they’re entitled to decline or accept donations as they see fit but it strikes me as a bit on the nose to characterize the whole thing as porn. I just thought it was a nice (if edgy and not to all tastes) femme riposte to ‘Movember’, and a way to remind women that cervical cancer kills, and early detection saves lives.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Chicken Little (741 comments) says:

    True colors aye Tom?

    Racist and a homophobe.

    KBB and VDS await you.

    You’ll fit right in.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. pseudonymous (74 comments) says:

    toms, you have got to be the lowest form of life.
    To put you in the picture I’m not gay, but when I see the unmitigated crap that you tout as informed debate I wonder who’s backside you have your head up!
    You’ve got to be one of those that picks his nose, rolls it into a little ball and flicks it at passers by.
    If at some time you have something to comment on that has a modicum of decency, post it somewhere else.
    Craig, I really enjoy your whit and your debating skills; great stuff mate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. KevOB (267 comments) says:

    The government is hurting. We have a new crop of name calling , bad mouthed, lout appearing here to irritate. Ignore them else they will get worse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    I dont think Starship should refuse the donation, but the fact remains NZ First still owe the Tax payer $158k, in the court of public opinion they still owe $158k, mind you I wont hold my breath.

    Oh and Toms, nice of you to prove the myth that is the ‘inclusive left’. And Craig, loved that line you just prove that I own your sad little cracker arses, if we were allowed signatures, that would be a good one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. John Dalley (394 comments) says:

    So remind me,
    Has the National Party paid it’s debt to the broadcasters?
    No it hasn’t, a donation is not a repayment of debt.
    What was the excuss, it was not legal to repay the said money.
    So what, National should have showed some spine and repayed it any way, taken what consequences may have been forthcoming (unlikely to be any) and would have gained qudos in the process.
    So i call on all the organisations still being owed money by the National Party to take legal action to have the debts repaid, or place the National Party into receivership for welching on their debts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    John.

    The debt to the broadcasters was payed to the broadcasters, not for the services rendered but to cover costs incurred by the broadcasters in respect to ads for charitable organisations, selected by the broadcasters.

    In this case, the broadcasters were owed, the broadcasters were paid but in a way that would satisfy the broadcasters while not breaking the law.

    In this case Parliamentary services are owed money illegally used, but this money has been paid to Starship.

    National came to this agreement by consulting with those it owed money to prior to making the payment. NZ First has given the money that it owed to a non connected third party and given the AG the finger.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. pseudonymous (74 comments) says:

    Geez, that’s original.
    Here we have Mr Dalley telling us that National should have broken the law and paid the GST, and taken the consequences.
    So it’s going to be Okay to show some spine and break the law (EFB) because the consequences are unlikely to be any?
    Give me a break.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    “What was the excuss, it was not legal to repay the said money.”

    Ok, I’m stating a very obvious bait.

    But ‘legal’ and ‘repay’ are usually very harmonious terms and I suspect very much so in this case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. WebWrat (516 comments) says:

    “….. you just prove that I own your sad little cracker arses.”

    Craig ….. perfect!
    LSMTTRDML = Laughed So Much The Tears Ran Down My Leg!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    John Dalley:

    Remind me – do you advise people to knowingly and deliberately break the law for a living? If so, I’d love to know where you work and recommend your employer sacks you immediately. As far as I’m aware, if the National Party had followed your advice, both National and the broadcasters would (or should be) facing prosecution for breeching the Broadcasting Act.

    Let’s compare and contrast with the case in hand. There was no legal impediment to NZ First legally challenging the A-G’s report (as Winston was threatening to do for months); and there never has been any question that NZ First would be breaking any law making out a cheque to Parliamentary Services.

    As my late Granny often used to say, the only place you can have a bet each way and keep your integrity is at the races.

    Good on you for sticking to the Labour/Winston First talking points, but your attempt at any kind of equivalence is more than usually lame.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    Has the National Party paid it’s debt to the broadcasters?
    No it hasn’t, a donation is not a repayment of debt.

    Nationals debt was between the National Party and the broadcasters in question, they both worked out a solution to the issue which satisfied both parties.
    NZ First’s debt was between them and Parliarmentary Services, NZ First took it upon themselves to make a donation to Starship hospital (which they should be commended for), but they have yet to work out a solution with Parliamentary Services that satisfies both parties.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    If he’d done it after January 1st it might be argued that it would have counted against his election spend wouldn’t it?

    I’m sure if Winestone had asked the Starship if they wanted to be put in the midde of a political s**tstorm then may well have politely declined…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    Craig ….. perfect!
    LSMTTRDML = Laughed So Much The Tears Ran Down My Leg!

    Ewww… and I guess I should apologise to the Sub-Mason-Dixon Line Anglo-American Community for 1) using a disgraceful ethnic slur like ‘cracker’ full stop, and, 2) equating them to toms. I’m sure most white Southerners are decent and honourable people who don’t deserve to be stereotyped in such a vicious manner. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    “I’m sure if Winestone had asked the Starship if they wanted to be put in the midde of a political s**tstorm then may well have politely declined…”

    Which of course is why it was done.

    Take the focus off the scoundrel.

    Winston has the skill to talk his way out of this. And he should have.

    Just talk and talk and talk until the media don’t want to listen any more.

    an issue never lasts more than a week these days anyway.

    Come January, Winston could set up a press conference about this and no one would come.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. gee90 (90 comments) says:

    The Herald is wrong. There is no relationship between Starship accepting a legal donation, and NZ First’s legal/moral/political obligations. They are entirely separate.

    Perhaps the Herald should apply a similar test to all its advertising revenue? Namely: legally paying the bill is not enough … you have to audit all the advertisers’ other income and expenditure too, even if unrelated.

    Furthermore, it is not clear why Starship should take a stance on this issue, at the cost of $158,000, when National’s leader has not (at no cost at all, except to his backbone).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    Let’s look at this from another angle…

    Question: does the Broadcasting Act prohibit National from paying any broadcasters for the additional broadcasting time they received?

    Answer: no.

    And people who suggest otherwise (the Electoral Commission etc.) are mistaken.

    However, if I am wrong, then people who urge National to pay up are inciting the commission of an offence (which is itself illegal).

    Also, if I am wrong, the Broadcasters would be committing an offence if they accepted the money.

    And whether I’m wrong or not, the initial contract itself was an illegal contract, and almost certainly unenforceable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Inventory2 (10,337 comments) says:

    Craig Ranapia said “I’m sure most white Southerners are decent and honourable people who don’t deserve to be stereotyped in such a vicious manner. ”

    Not unlike most Exclusive Brethren, don’t you think Craig?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Castafiore (262 comments) says:

    Why are NZF allowed to do this?

    Simply put as the Herald has stated the money belongs back with the taxpayer and this sets a serious precedent that legally owed money to the Crown can be avoided and used for politcal advantage.

    This is tantamount to bribery and corruption!!!

    This is worst than Taito is alledged to have done in that this has been done in is a deliberate and calculated action.

    Bring back the SFO!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. democracymum (648 comments) says:

    Next time I receive a parking ticket – I won’t be paying my fine to Wellington City Council – oh no!!!

    If it’s good enough for Winston – I will be donating my cash to the Wellington Hospital

    God only knows they need it!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    “Bring back the SFO!!!!”

    What happened to the SFO, has it been disbanded.

    The politicians got rid of the SFO??

    Thats bad.

    Sorry for the understatement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. GerryandthePM (328 comments) says:

    Bevan, at 8.58am, notes that Starship has received a gift.

    Peters owes another $158,000 to the taxpayer.

    That 2 year investment must have really paid off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    toms seems to have gone all quiet.

    Is he “taking it like a man” or something?

    CRAIG put down the redneck leftie!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. radvad (765 comments) says:

    Thanks for the donation Winston.

    NOW PAY US BACK.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    “As my late Granny often used to say, the only place you can have a bet each way and keep your integrity is at the races.”

    Is Winston still Minister of Racing?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “Ewww… and I guess I should apologise to the Sub-Mason-Dixon Line Anglo-American Community for 1) using a disgraceful ethnic slur like ‘cracker’ full stop, and, 2) equating them to toms.”

    Was that a play on mine and sam dixon’s names CR? If so it was brilliant. Any how, you’re still a house n*%%$r, and a support of a party whose members have consistently voted against queer-friendly legislation in overwhelming majority. Traitor.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    Was that a play on mine and sam dixon’s names CR? If so it was brilliant. Any how, you’re still a house n*%%$r, and a support of a party whose members have consistently voted against queer-friendly legislation in overwhelming majority. Traitor.

    Now roger backs up toms and shows the so called ‘inclusive left’ to be an absolute fallacy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    WOOP WOOP

    Threadjack Alert!!

    WOOP WOOP

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    Go back and look at voting for the civil unions bill – just did a quick count. About 90% of Nat MPs voted against it. Looks like a party of homophobes to me.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=9001414

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    WOOP WOOP!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Adam Smith (890 comments) says:

    SFO is being absorbed into the Police. Whilst the SFO did not have a stellar track record, and the reasons for it’s establishment in the first place have not evaporated, the ‘authorities’ consider the functions can now be carried out more effectively if subsumed within the police.

    Time will tell, but I am not hopeful, given the recent police track record.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    Heh Craig If I stole money off that halfwit TomS and then gave it to a charity I bet he wouldnt be so bloody smug.

    Typically two faced socialist arseholes. Always has to be their way or the highway Cant Wont see any other view point no matter what

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Reg (539 comments) says:

    Not biting Roger, the threads about NZF’s starship donation!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Right of way is Way of Right (1,122 comments) says:

    Well done Winston, way to support sick kids, by using them as cheap political point scoring.

    Did you check if any of them were the children of immigrants?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. A Nonny Mouse (15 comments) says:

    I currently owe $700 to the IRD after my business failed a couple years ago. Following Winstons lead… can I tell the IRD that rather than paying them, I’m going to donate it to a charity instead?

    Please tell me that will let me do that, the church I go to could use the money….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    CL – I know about the mason-dixon line. It’s only referenced in popular culture like a zillion times. The question was whether or not Craig had meant it as a double entendre – idiot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    Dear Nome:

    Project much? The Mason-Dixon Line is a demarcation line between four U.S. states (forming part of the borders of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, and West Virginia). It was surveyed between 1763 and 1767 by Charles Mason and Jeremiah Dixon. The name is often idiomatically used to describe the symbolic border between the cultural and social norms of the Northern and Southern states.

    If you want to read some obscure attack on you (presumably your real name is Roger Mason?) and the person who posts here as Sam Dixon, I can’t take any ownership of that. To be honest, I’m not really that subtle.

    Nothing else in your demented tantrum requires – or is worthy of – a response. Go back to the kennel you absurd little runt; because every time you try to play the alpha bitch with me, you just humiliate yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    Craig- thanks for the [long-winded] clarification as to your intention with the Mason-Dixon line thing. As I’ve already said, i already knew what it was.

    ” absurd little runt” “alpha bitch” “demented tantrum”. Sounds like you’re losing it craigie baby. Those truths hit home a little hard? I can understand that having your abject hypocrisy pointed out must be harsh, but do try to *own* your emotions hey? No need to shoot the messenger.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    Nome:

    F-R-E-U-D-I-A-N P-R-O-J-E-C-T-I-O-N. Look it up.

    And in future, please leave me out of whatever psychodrama your the lead actor in. Some of you lefty trolls have gotten downright creepy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    Ok Craig, you’re right. I’m a middle aged shoe tapping Tory who votes for blue blooded bigots that hate my sexual identity. My above “demented rant” was pure F-R-E-U-D-I-A-N P-R-O-J-E-C-T-I-O-N. I apologise and withdraw everything I’ve said on this thread.

    RN.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Yvette (2,809 comments) says:

    Is Winston, by his actions, not making a statement [in fact, I think he has specifically said] that to pay the misappropriated money straight back into State Services, or exactly where it came from, would be to loose it in bureaucracy and inefficiency, so what he is doing is more effective and useful – and in making this political gesture [criticising Government efficiency] is he not doing something that next year will have limitations placed on it, because he will have helped pass the EFB imposing those limitations?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,320 comments) says:

    NZ Last must think we’re a bunch of suckers.

    Here’s what they’ve had to say (hopefully in the right order):

    – Deny, deny, deny.
    – Minimise and blame the Auditor-General.
    – Attack the Auditor-General’s professionalism.
    – Take the matter under legal advice.
    – Some time later, promise to pay it back.
    – Months later, re-promise to pay it back.
    – Update: NZ Last’s caucus is still considering the legal advice.
    – Months later, explain the money’s locked in a term deposit and can’t be released until November (some term deposit that is).
    – In December, pay it to StarShip Hospital under protest about the court hearing schedule.

    I’ve probably missed something – can anyone add to this list?

    There are at least two obvious flaws in this argument:

    (1) It beggars belief that NZ Last justify their actions by saying it’s difficult to have a pre-election court hearing. Since they were so vehemently opposed to the Auditor-General’s findings, why didn’t they lodge a statement of claim at an earlier stage then?

    (2) NZ Last carefully avoid mentioning the possibility of paying the money under protest, then seeking recovery through the courts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 (852 comments) says:

    so phillipjohn mason turns up again to add charm and variety to the debate. He regrettably is a good example of why NZ universities need to set higher entry standards. Then nasty little pillocks like him will have to find out what the real world looks like – those parts where you aren’t owed a living.

    and of course don’t you just love how the little prick operates

    hey someone used my name, preen preen – best slag them quick

    oh hang on, someone’s found me out again

    off to wikipedia

    hey I knew that ! am too clever! etc etc

    rather sad really

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 (852 comments) says:

    and of course only true socialists are allowed to use the N word because of course they are “for” the people and the oppressed. Or they are being ironic, or using it for satirical effect …. or whatever it takes to close debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 (852 comments) says:

    in fact why is it every time phillipjohn turns up here to onanate in public, i keep getting flashbacks to Rik the people’s poet?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,320 comments) says:

    Deity Nigel:

    This is the Phillip John/Roger Nome who claims to enjoy “kicking Tory butt”?
    And who aspires to be a “highly-paid academic”?

    *Snigger*

    Oh, and Phillip John, just in case you want to call me a “slimy little toad” (yet again), I’m happy to try tracking down those quotes if you deny saying them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 (852 comments) says:

    i know, “highly paid academic” is a brilliant oxymoron isnt it?

    I think I pay my cleaning lady the same hourly rate a uni lecturer gets … but thats how it is even with even our inefficient labour market, useful skills always find their efficient clearing price…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    Boy the right hate it when they have their backwardness and bigotry pointed out don’t they? They tend to get rather nasty and sneering when it’s pointed out.

    oh and POC you’re happy to track down quotes that you’ve attributed to me hey? Well how about this one, that you stated I had “said only a few days prior. You’ve never been able to find it and you never will hey liar?

    Oh, and I can’t wait to see what Phillip John/Roger Nome has to say about this. He has an uncanny habit of making statistics mean whatever he likes. And I do seem to recall him commenting just the other day that: (paraphrasing) “Labour gave us interest-free student loans, right-wing whingers said it’d increase aggregate borrowing, didn’t happen, sooky wah wah”. Do we need to pull this out of the top-drawer – or will you stand behind your comment?

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/10/student_loans-2.html

    So why can’t you “pull this out of the top draw” POC? Surely you weren’t telling porkies?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 (852 comments) says:

    yup phillipjohn mason:

    “Any how, you’re still a house n*%%$r, and a support of a party whose members have consistently voted against queer-friendly legislation in overwhelming majority. Traitor.”

    thats really pointing out the “backwardness and bigotry” of the right isnt it?

    any wonder why reasonable people decide to get nasty and sneering? Oh yes, its because you are an odious little prick. Deal with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 (852 comments) says:

    just as well no one is going to google Phillip Mason, or phillip john mason and find him making homophobic racist remarks isnt it?

    no, universities and private sector employers never check to make sure that their prospective hires aren’t racist homophobic bigots. Eh, phillipjohn mason?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 (852 comments) says:

    I think now would be a good time for you to apologise profusely and leave Mr Mason, you have crossed the line of civil discourse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,320 comments) says:

    Poor Phillip John, does it still upset you that others remember you making that comment? Oh that’s right, you said they’d naturally agree with me because they’re righties. So no point having a rational debate with you on that subject then.

    Oh, and Phillip John, you really shouldn’t preach to me about backwardness and bigotry. Have you apologised to Pascal for calling his wife a dog? No? And that’s only one example of your more recent disgusting comments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “the idiot formerly known as nigel6888″

    You’ve got no idea of my ethnicity, or my sexuality, and you seem to be too thick to ‘get’ what I’m saying hey? Anyway, enjoy the link.

    http://orvillelloyddouglas.wordpress.com/2007/11/28/malcolm-x-asks-the-question-what-kind-of-black-person-are-you/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 (852 comments) says:

    Oh I think everyone gets you Mr Mason. Loud and clear.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,320 comments) says:

    Nigel’s got no idea of your sexuality? How could that be? You’ve told Kiwiblog readers about your high-IQ gorgeous girlfriend how many times now?

    As for “the party whose members have consistently voted against queer-friendly legislation in overwheming majority” – it’s been a while since I saw the conscience vote figures for the civil union legislation (to take one example), but I wonder how many “conservative lefties” were outed?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. WebWrat (516 comments) says:

    Gnome:
    Can you tell me why the government is sucking up to communist countries?
    Why did Winston go to North Korea?
    Why is the government talking of giving Nth Korea ‘financial assistance?
    Why did my father bother to spend half a decade fighting for our democracy?
    Why are you and your traitor mates so desperate to errode said democracy?
    Why do you think you are so ‘gung-ho’ when you consistantly and deliberately offend the very people that financially support you so you can sit on your arse in Dunedin and offend them?
    Why do you think it is such a joke to denigrate our democracy that so many people sacrificed their lives to acheive?
    Is a frontal lobotomy mandatory for socialists?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    POC:

    “Nigel’s got no idea of your sexuality?”

    Other than that I’m not “gay”, yes.

    Also, you seemed to have missed the link that I posted above.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=9001414

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “Poor Phillip John, does it still upset you that others remember you making that comment?”

    And yet none of them could point to where I’d said it, despite it supposedly only occurring several days prior? You’ve had weeks to find it, yet you haven’t. Guess I’ll let people make up their own mind as to whether you were telling the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,320 comments) says:

    I was just working through a list of names – the NZ Herald helpfully saves me the bother.

    So:

    Clayton Cosgrove (Lab, Waimakariri)
    Harry Duynhoven (Lab, New Plymouth)
    Taito Phillip Field (Lab, Mangere)
    Damien O’Connor (Lab, West Coast-Tasman)
    Ross Robertson (Lab, Manukau East)
    John Tamihere (Lab, Tamaki Makarau)

    Hmmm… that’s intriguing.

    Oh, and judging by your track record on Kiwiblog, yes I’m happy for others to make up their own mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. thehawkreturns (162 comments) says:

    Back on track…

    What I love about Kiwiblog is that when I compose an original idea here one day an Editor of a major newspaper takes it up the next!

    True democracy! A lot easier than trying to get the same letter published in a newspaper before the editor has come with the “original” thought first.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “Hmmm… that’s intriguing.”

    Not nearly as intriguing as this….

    For:

    Katherine Rich (Nat, list)
    Clem Simich (Nat, Tamaki)
    Pansy Wong (Nat, list)

    Against:

    Shane Ardern (Nat, Taranaki-King Country)
    Don Brash (Nat, list)
    Gerry Brownlee (Nat, Ilam)
    David Carter (Nat, list)
    John Carter (Nat, Northland)
    Judith Collins (Nat, Clevedon)
    Brian Connell (Nat, Rakaia)
    Bill English (Nat, Clutha-Southland)
    Sandra Goudie (Nat, Coromandel)
    Phil Heatley (Nat, Whangarei)
    Paul Hutchison (Nat, Port Waikato)
    John Key (Nat, Helensville)
    Wayne Mapp (Nat, North Shore)
    Murray McCully (Nat, Albany)
    Simon Power (Nat, Rangitikei)
    Tony Ryall (Nat, Bay of Plenty)
    Lynda Scott (Nat, Kaikoura)
    Lockwood Smith (Nat, Rodney)
    Nick Smith (Nat, Nelson)
    Roger Sowry (Nat, list)
    Barbara Stewart (NZ First, list)
    Georgina te Heuheu (Nat, list)
    Lindsay Tisch (Nat, Piako)
    Maurice Williamson (Nat, Pakuranga)
    Richard Worth (Nat, Epsom)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. tim barclay (886 comments) says:

    By giving the money to a charity Peters is probably work some tax rort and getting 1/3 back.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,320 comments) says:

    Yes, intriguing indeed. I was musing about how many “conservative lefties” were outed: it turns out that six Labour MPs voted against “queer-friendly legislation”. Even Ashraf Choudhardy somehow found it within himself to vote for it! Just goes to show that conscience is an individual matter. And goodness – did you really need to bold John Key’s name?

    Now, on the subject of this thread, does anyone disagree with the “two obvious flaws” mentioned in my 3:25 post?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “Just goes to show that conscience is an individual matter.”

    I know – and a vast majority of National MPS individually chose to vote against same sex couples having the same rights as human beings, that heterosexual people enjoy. Yet only a small minority of Labour MPs did this. And not one of the green MPs did. Very telling …. very telling indeed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “did you really need to bold John Key’s name?”

    A bit of an eye sore for you was it POC? Truth hurts?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    No POC,,

    but why doesn’t Winston ever get Journo’s asking him these q’s?

    Even if he pushes them off, who cares,

    will someone plse just attack him!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,320 comments) says:

    Phillip John/Roger Nome:

    One last comment from me – I don’t want to turn this into a civil union thread. There was one unsatisfactory aspect I picked up at the time. Some proponents were publicly against same-sex couples “having the same obligations as human beings, that heterosexual people enjoy” (to adapt your wording). I’m referring here to the corresponding amendments to the definition of “associated person” in the income tax legislation. So these people wanted to enjoy the human rights, but not the tax obligations that go with recognition of a relationship? Tsk tsk. Equality befoere the law and all that.

    Hinamanu:

    I quite agree. Winston’s dug himself into such a hole that, frankly, I’m surprised the media isn’t holding him to account. They’re normally up for a story about “rorting the public purse”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    Some proponents were publicly against same-sex couples “having the same obligations as human beings….”

    Indeed POC. And your point is? Was that an attempted smear against all the proponents of the bill? Or just an ineffectual flail?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,320 comments) says:

    Phillip John:

    I should have expected you to read a conspiracy theory into my comment. Are you that incapable of understanding what I wrote?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. helmet (807 comments) says:

    Philip Mason drools again : “I know – and a vast majority of [Labour] MPS individually chose to vote against same sex couples having the same rights as human beings, that heterosexual people enjoy.”

    You’ve embarrassed yourself on this thread yet again Philip, it’s actually quite painful to watch. Do your career a favour and promise yourself to never comment on Kiwiblog ever again. Seriously, I feel bad for you dude. Some of your students might read this shit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,320 comments) says:

    Helmet:

    When Phillip John/Roger Nome backs himself into a corner, he invokes three arguments:

    (1) You didn’t have a point.
    (2) Conspiracy theory: attempted smear.
    (3) Even if you did have a point, and it’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s an ineffective flail.

    *Snigger*

    Silly me. I’d thought it was obvious to everyone – including the highly-paid academic aspirant, Phillip John – that recognising a relationship as having legal status under the law (on the one hand) logically implies recognising that same relationship for tax purposes (on the other hand).

    Phillip John can’t bring himself to recognise that inconvenient fact, so instead resorts to flailing tactics. As you say, I hope his students aren’t watching.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    *sigh* I was going to leave this alone, but the Human Rights Amendment Bill (in the name of National associate Health Minister Katherine O’Reagan) was passed wih overwhelming majorities on all sides.

    I’m also surprised that Roger Nome didn’t manage to dig up that I was personally opposed to the Civil Unions Bill – because I’m personally in favour of full marriage equality, and believe civil unions have killed that stone, cold dead.

    Should I start counting up the Labour MP’s who don’t share my view?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,320 comments) says:

    Craig:

    I wouldn’t bother – Phillip John is, to borrow his memorable phrase, a slimy toad.

    Why do I say that? This thread is about NZ First’s *cough* charitable donation to Starship. But, no, Phillip John’s more immediate concern was whether your comment was a play on his and Sam Dixon’s names. Which he followed up with “Any how, you’re still a house n*%%$r, and a support of a party whose members have consistently voted against queer-friendly legislation in overwhelming majority. Traitor.”

    In fact, apart from casting aspersions about who’s a traitor – as if he’s anyone to judge – so far Phillip John’s had nothing to say about NZ First’s conduct. Here’s hoping that Wikipedia or the latest OECD statistics on Finland, or whetever, have something of remote relevance to this thread topic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    Don’t worry about Roger. He tends to use statistics as a drunk uses a lamp-post, more for support than illumination.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Peter Bickle (35 comments) says:

    Hi all

    See Starship are handing the money back.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4324280a10.html

    Egg on the face of NZF.

    Ha ha

    Regards
    Peter Bickle

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,320 comments) says:

    Peter:

    Goodness – what an interesting development.

    There’s a silver lining in this cloud though: NZ First has now committed themselves to paying the money back in some way – even if the repayment terms are unusual. Hopefully NZ First will now, as they should have done quite some time ago, repay the money to the proper source – before it *ahem* gets locked up in another term deposit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Peter Bickle (35 comments) says:

    Hi all

    There goes NZF donation tax rebate of $60K.
    I wonder what the fallback position was if this happened.
    Will be interesting to see.

    Regards
    Peter Bickle

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Lindsay Addie (1,507 comments) says:

    Starship are handing the money back.

    Winston’s chicanery has bitten him on the arse.

    rofl

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,320 comments) says:

    Actually, reading the article that Peter kindly linked to more closely:

    Mr Peters said he remained determined to give the money to a good cause rather than the Parliamentary Service.
    “There are a lot of young kids in this country who could use this help.
    “I assume the NZ First board who made this decision in the first place . . . will sit down and decide something similar in the future,” he said.
    “We are not legally obliged in any way to pay this money back, we’ve always contested it as well and we want some good purpose to come from it and we will find some good purpose.”

    Peters acknowledges (as he must) that the money came from Parliamentary Services. If he claims to “want some good purpose to come from it” then what better purpose than to secure NZ First’s re-election? Or is Peters running scared with tainted funds?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. natural party of govt (461 comments) says:

    Headline:

    NZ Herald wants sick children to suffer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Lindsay Addie (1,507 comments) says:

    Starship Foundation Board chairman Bryan Mogridge, who was out of the country when the donation was made, today said the board had decided to return the money.

    “Starship accepted the money from NZ First in good faith and were told that the donation was legal.

    “It’s most unfortunate that the money wasn’t given in the spirit of genuine philanthropy, but rather it appears to gain political capital and media leverage,”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. kehua (225 comments) says:

    Headline:

    Sickly leader of sick party rejected by Hospital.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,320 comments) says:

    NPOG:

    An alternative suggestion for a headline:

    NPOG puts money where his/her mouth is and donates to Starship!

    Are you keen?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Adam Smith (890 comments) says:

    What charity with any integrity will acept the $.

    However, this gives WTP the excuse to say that as NZF contest the issue and charities will not accept the $, therefore, they have no choice but to keep the $.

    State funding of his 2008 campaign

    Luigi strikes again

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. natural party of govt (461 comments) says:

    “NPOG puts money where his/her mouth is and donates to Starship!”

    I donate my time to paediatric medical research.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Lindsay Addie (1,507 comments) says:

    Peters and his bunch of cronies should be condemned for dragging the Starship Hospital into their silly political games.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. vto (1,128 comments) says:

    winston bjeikle-peterson bullshit at its peak.

    feel free to now pay all fines, overdue tax, income tax, GST, diesel mile taxes, fag taxes, booze taxes, road taxes, more road taxes, petrol taxes, levies, etc etc direct to your favourite state entity.

    The bullshit surrounding this whole matter is MIND BLOWING. FIRST our money gets illegally used by the politicians , despite prior warnings that it would be illegal, THEN they scrap and argue and denigrate public servants when it is confirmed that the use of the money was illegal (as previously warned), THEN they pass a law to make their illegal act legal, THEN they decide to pay it back even though they claim they dont have to (because they passed a new law), THEN the repayment gets made to some state entity as some sort of circus act!

    And politicians wonder why they are rated so low by people.

    And Clark berates the media for cynicism.

    They are a joke. And they make me very angry. I hate this behaviour

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. natural party of govt (461 comments) says:

    While its arguable that Peters was donating to sick children for political purposes I am mystified on why Bryan Mogridge can rejected under any grounds except that are political.

    After all Bill English also misappropriated money for a pledge card, presumably around 500 000 – 800 000 dollars worth of taxpayers money.

    Does that mean the Starship hospital will refuse all donations from national party members until that is refunded too?

    What right does Bryan Mogridge to put his personal political views above the interests of sick children?

    [DPF: As the Chairman of the Trust, he gets that right. And I suspect he thought that they would lose far more money than the $158k they were given by Winnie, due to public disapproval]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,320 comments) says:

    NPOG:

    I think your sentence might be incomplete: “I donate my time to paediatric medical research for pecuniary advantage“?

    Just pointing out that true charity is philanthropic. Which NZ First’s political stunt most certainly isn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. natural party of govt (461 comments) says:

    Or perhaps Bryan Mogridge is refusing to accept any donations until he repays back the golden handshake he received that an auditor general also found unlawful?

    What a hypocrite.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Lindsay Addie (1,507 comments) says:

    NPOG,

    You’re the only person who cannot figure this all out. No charity is going to accept that money now. Anyway those pricks at NZF should PAY IT BACK to who it belongs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. PaulL (5,981 comments) says:

    NPOG: is it being hypocritical calling other people a hypocrite when you, yourself, are a hypocrite?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. vto (1,128 comments) says:

    i cannot believe lying pricks like winsotn bjeikle-peterson have control over the annual spend of some $50billion in this country. I wouldn’t trust them one dollar of mine (if I had a choice)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,320 comments) says:

    I had to deconstruct your argument just to make sure my initial take was correct.

    (1) Auditor-General found Mogridge received unlawful golden handshake.
    (2) Mogridge hasn’t paid it back.
    (3) Auditor-General found NZ First (among others) misapplied public funds.
    (4) NZ First (so far) hasn’t paid it back.

    Yep, no hypocrisy there.

    What would be hypocritical is if Mogridge pocketed public funds misapplied by NZ First – and gave himself a performance bonus.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,320 comments) says:

    Sorry, let me repost that:

    Or perhaps Bryan Mogridge is refusing to accept any donations until he repays back the golden handshake he received that an auditor general also found unlawful?
    What a hypocrite.

    I had to deconstruct your argument just to make sure my initial take was correct.

    (1) Auditor-General found Mogridge received unlawful golden handshake.
    (2) Mogridge hasn’t paid it back.
    (3) Auditor-General found NZ First (among others) misapplied public funds.
    (4) NZ First (so far) hasn’t paid it back.

    Yep, no hypocrisy there.

    What would be hypocritical is if Mogridge pocketed public funds misapplied by NZ First – and gave himself a performance bonus.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Peter Bickle (35 comments) says:

    Hi all

    NPOG, using this logic Liarbour still owe over $1M for their other 2 election uses of pledge cards. However, this is now not illegal as your party passed laws making it legal.

    A red herring really, the AG did not make a fuss of this at all re the 2002 spending as it was an error done in say good faith. He warned parties B4 the 2005 election that this would be illegal. Liabour still did it and as a result they stole the election.

    Regards
    Peter Bickle

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. natural party of govt (461 comments) says:

    So I am confused.

    Did Bill English misappropriate half a million dollars for a pledge card or not?

    I am confused how something was legal in 2002 but stolen in 2005?

    “What would be hypocritical is if Mogridge pocketed public funds misapplied by NZ First – and gave himself a performance bonus.”

    No it is hypocritical to accept an unlawful payment of public funds but turn down a donation for sick children because you believe someone else has accepted an unlawful payment of public funds.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. tim barclay (886 comments) says:

    The starship board has rejected this money and will be returning it to NZF. It will be interesting to see which organisation will accept this hot money.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Adam Smith (890 comments) says:

    NPOg is confused or threadjacking?

    What does he mean Bill English misappropriated funds.

    He, NPOG, is deliberately obfuscating in order to avoid addressing the issue of what the Audior General determined in respect of the 2005 election, after he the Auditor General clearly stated , in advance of the 2005 election what was his interpretation.

    No doubt in the fantsay land he lives in NPOG can blow smoke all day!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Peter Bickle (35 comments) says:

    Hi all

    NPOG. Being a socialist I can only begin to understand why you are soooooo confused. It must be a hard existance with a pea sized brain.
    1. Liarbour also had a pledge card in 2002, so this was illegal as well.
    2. Labour with help from their allies have now made this pleage card legal, nothing to see here, move on.
    3. It is ethical not to accept stolen money, hence Starship turning it down.

    Starship should have sent the money to Parliamentary Services, save NZF the handling fee.

    Regards
    Peter Bickle

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. natural party of govt (461 comments) says:

    “NPOg is confused or threadjacking?

    What does he mean Bill English misappropriated funds.”

    Well Bill English funded a pledge card out funds set aside for parliamentary purposes. Such pledge cards are deemed by the AG to electioneering, therefore Bill English misappropriated the money.

    All such misappropriations have legalised retrospectively. So that NZ First is perfectly entitled to donate the money that is now legally theirs to any charity they so wish.

    Except it seems that the man who accepted illegally obtained taxpayers’ money in a golden handshake thinks his misunderstanding of the issue is more important than the interests of sick children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Peter Bickle (35 comments) says:

    Hi all

    NPOG, nothing to see here, move on, this is not an issue, even your beloved leader does not drone on about this. NZF are thieves and corrupt, that is the main issue.
    Maybe you should be asking Peter Dunne where his money is and what will be his charity of choice! mORE TO SEE HERE.

    Regards
    Peter Bickle

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. natural party of govt (461 comments) says:

    “NZF are thieves and corrupt, that is the main issue.”

    As is Bill English, apparantly, the half a million dollar man.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Peter Bickle (35 comments) says:

    Hi all

    NPOG, who is making an issue of this in the real world, not the sphere of your cranium. Go to the papers, after all, with this scoop will have them swarming to your feet.

    Regards
    Peter Bickle

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    npog – your party is not the natural party of government. they are, sadly for supporters of Labours original ideals, a bunch of thieving, manipulative cowards who will trample any principle in the name of perpetuated power. it’s disgraceful, as are those who support such behaviour.

    and smear-like suggestions that others might be as bad as Labour’s poodleocracy does not work for anyone with an EQ greater than zero.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Frank. (607 comments) says:

    So where will Winston’s “30 pieces of silver” end up?

    “Tainted” money ain’t wanted by Starship

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. natural party of govt (461 comments) says:

    krazy kiwi, could you give me a straight answer on this.

    Do you think Bill English’s pledge card in 2002 was paid for by misappropriated money or not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    npog, i have no idea. tell you what – you find a kiwiblog thread on this topic and we’ll discuss it. while you’re doing this, i’ll find a kiwiblog thread about the molecular structure of swiss cheese and we can discuss where the holes come from too.

    so, threadjack over – who else thinks the Coiffured Bauble Bear looks like a right plonker now?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Peter Bickle (35 comments) says:

    Hi all

    Lets stop feeding the trolls, they might get the energy to breed more trolls.

    Regards
    Peter Bickle

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. natural party of govt (461 comments) says:

    “npog, i have no idea. tell you what – you find a kiwiblog thread on this topic and we’ll discuss it. while you’re doing this, i’ll find a kiwiblog thread about the molecular structure of swiss cheese and we can discuss where the holes come from too”

    I’ll take that as a no then.

    Can you give me a straight answer on these two questions then.

    1. After the retrospective legislation that Parliament passed are NZ First’s expenditure and Bill English’s 2002 pledge card now legally appropriated funds?

    2. Does the Starship Hospital have a goal of providing care and research for better care for sick children?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    1. threadjack
    2. yes

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. natural party of govt (461 comments) says:

    Well I dont see how 1 is a threadjack.

    After all, even if you don’t like the process surely the legal entitlement of NZ First to the funds they are donating is an issue here?

    So I restate: Did the retrospective legislation legalise the spending of Bill English’s 2002 pledge card and NZ First’s 2005 expenditure?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    obfuscation has always been threadjacking. night. (try to sleep straight, eh?)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    NPoG:

    Once more, all I can do is quote Jeanette Fitzsimons:

    Green co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons said earlier this week that everyone would be happy to see Starship Hospital get money.

    “But this is not a generous gesture by New Zealand First to Starship Hospital, this is a generous donation by the taxpayers to Starship Hospital and let’s not be confused about that.”

    (Source: http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/PoliticalNews/StarshiprejectsNZFirstmoney/tabid/419/articleID/41739/cat/67/Default.aspx)

    Jeanette noted that the Greens didn’t agree with the A-G either, but chose not to mount any kind of legal challenge, and publicly committed to returning the money to Parliamentary Services and did so.

    Despite you rather desperate attempt to fog the issue, the Greens have it right and you don’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. natural party of govt (461 comments) says:

    Craig gleefully joins the brigade that rejoices over money being snatched from sick children.

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