Winston is still determined to give the money to anyone except The Parliamentary Service. Someone should set up an online petition we can sign saying we will never ever donate to whatever charity accepts his money as it is morally owed to the taxpayer.
Remember United Future still owes around $50,000 also. E-mail and phone them and ask when they will be paying.
Notwithstanding (2) should the Free Speech Coalition write to Winston saying that we would be happy to accept his money
This entry was posted on Saturday, December 15th, 2007 at 8:35 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
27 Responses to “More on Starship donation returned”
So once again, has National paid their broadcasting debt.
Don’t bother telling me it’s ilegal to do so.
Don’t tell me they made a donation for them to distribute.
What that tells me is they have still not paid their debt.
They did not have enough gumption or integrity to just pay it and accept the conscequences (if any) and that said broadcasters should be suing for payment.
[DPF: What matters is who the debt is owed to. National had a moral obligation to repay the broadcasters. The broadcasters are satisified with the arrangement. NZ First has a moral obligation to repay the taxpayer - and it seems many of them are not so keen on the proposed course of action]
There is only one parliamentarian I really dislike and that is Winston Peters. Over the money repayment he is just being a smart alec.
What I don’t like about him is that he will say whatever suits his purposes. He will say whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear. When up against Margaret Wilson in 2002 speaking to audiences of retired people in Tauranga he deliberately played on the civil union bill knowing full well old people would find it difficult to accept.
I hope he is out on his ear next election. I also hope Bob Clarkson stays and contests Tauranga against him.
So who is going to accept this HOT money now. I think Starship and the Herald have set the issues squarely. If another charity takes it then they too will become part of a political game being run by Peters. But is any charity good enough, I suspect not. There maybe a tax angle to all this meaning that the tax rebate may be required to fund it fully.
It’s nice for Winston to provide something short and pithy that encapsulates his performance and morals, which will avoid lengthy slogans needing to be yelled at any Election meeting he dares to hold next year – we’ll just need to call out ‘STARSHIP’ and everyone will get it.
I challenge the other parties to come up with a suitable abbreviation to sum up their own achievements.
[Thinks: will having a placard that says 'STARSHIP" or 'SUPPORT STARSHIP' be seen as a political comment under the EFB - I mean I know it will be, but how does the bill interpret interpretation - is it the wording on the placard itself or the image it creates in the mind of the perceiver, and is the placard holder responsible under the EFB for what happens in someone else's mind? Non wonder Annette King doesn't understand it - or anyone else]
well it seems the answer to john’s question is that it is up to the creditors to determine whether they are satisfied. The debt to the broadcasters has been settled in a way acceptable to the broadcasters, and thereby extinguished.
NZF’s debt is to the taxpayers of NZ because the money was stolen from Parliamentary Services. Giving stolen money to a third party does not extinguish the original crime. Doing it in such a way as to try and generate some cheap publicity is just cynical third rate theatre. Having your donation returned because it is dirty money ices the cake.
Winston, stop bullshitting, you stole it, just give the money back!
But some people just can’t understand – or won’t understand a simple proposition, will they John?
The more you wriggle and squirm and try and change the subject, set up straw men, or just keep monotonously booming out your obfuscation, the more you draw attention to the moral and integrity barren landscape of NZF and its acolytes.
Sticky area – which suggests the EFB will prosecute ‘Thought-Crime’?
I also suggested yesterday that if Winston paid this money after Jan 1st as publically as he did would it not count against his election spend?
Such was the arrogance of the gesture designed to get people just like John Dalley jumping up and down…. How easy it is for Winston to push buttons and watch the mischief unfold.
Winston, if you’re reading this, I think you are a borderline sociopath. If you and any others agree, don’t say anything, just smile….
PS Can we have a separate thread for John Dalley he seems incapable of addressing the topic on hand, or accepting the answers already given re the National ‘pay-back’?
I agree with rfhoward about Winston.
He reminds me of the old time US evagelists who claim they can cure any malady with some horse potion.
To see him in the house with his tin pot cronies backing up this hopeless government just makes my blood boil.
Let’s rejoice that Starship has seen through this miserable charade from NZ First(It should be Winston First).
Get rid of NZ First !
It would be nice to hear John Key condemn this ploy by Winston. It would also be nice for him to promise a referendum on MMP. A coalition government by lead by National would clearly be better the present government but probably not much better.
Mr Key is obviously concerned about upsetting potential coalition partners. Why does he not give the voters some credit at his predecessor did and give them real choice so hopefully we can see an end to all these backroom deals?
December 15th, 2007 at 9:00 am
“There is only one parliamentarian I really dislike and that is Winston Peters. …. I hope he is out on his ear next election. I also hope Bob Clarkson stays and contests Tauranga against him.”
he has done NOTHING for Tauranga since being an MP
we have gone from one bigotted self promoter to another.
Tauranga needs a new face.
The whole of this fiasco would not have happened if The Office of the Police Commissioner had investigated the complaint 10 February 2006 of the theft of the money from Helen’s Leader’s Funds. (Taxpayer’s mone
Starship – or the next Charitable Trust he tries – should just cross out their name as Payee & assign the cheque to Parliamentary Services.
And say so publicly.
Winstone then snookered – and probably unable to claim his donation tax deduction.
Having the next chosen charity endorse the cheque over to Parliamentary Services and forward it to them would have worked until 3 or 4 years ago when the Cheques Act 1908 had its first major amendment since (I think about 1972).
It is almost certain that the cheque was crossed with either `Not Transferrable or Account Payee Only’. If that is the case it cannot be handed over by the Payee to a third party – in this case Parliamentary Services. Banks are actually issuing cheque books with this crossing on all cheques these days. It would have to be handed back to NZ First and a new cheques issued and I don’t see Winston allowing that at this stage.
But then he does say NZ First is a democracy and it was a committee decision – oh hell a pig just flew past.
If the cheque was from an old cheque book then it may have a Not Negotiable crossing. If that is the case the cheque could be endorsed to Parliamentary Services and handed over as Not Negotiable means `that the holder of the cheque has no better title to the cheque than the person from whom they received it’ whcih means that would be okay.
The question then arises as to whether Parliamentary Services would want to get involved in the whole sordid business by accepting a cheque from a third party and not directly from NZ First. That would be an interesting scenario to see played out.
…I am required to work fulltime and I get paid the equivalent of a 50% salary…
Clearly that’s an arrangement you’ve struck with your employer.
But at least you’ve been honest enough to (impliedly) retract your argument about Kiwiblog blowhards being selfish pricks. You simply don’t know how much people donate, and it’s presumptuous to suggest otherwise.