More on Starship donation returned

December 15th, 2007 at 8:35 am by David Farrar
  1. One can show your support for them at http://www.starship.org.nz/donation.
  2. 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.
  3. Remember United Future still owes around $50,000 also.  E-mail and phone them and ask when they will be paying.
  4. Notwithstanding (2) should the Free Speech Coalition write to Winston saying that we would be happy to accept his money :-)
Tags:

27 Responses to “More on Starship donation returned”

  1. John Dalley (394 comments) says:

    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]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. rfhoward (496 comments) says:

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Sofia (849 comments) says:

    It’s time to get off the ship Ron [Winston's, not Starship]

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

    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.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Sofia (849 comments) says:

    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]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 (859 comments) says:

    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.

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

    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’?

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

    I said just smile, not laugh out loud!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. MajorBloodnok (361 comments) says:

    Can I suggest that if you donate to Starship, in the absence of a comments field, you put something like “Not Winston” in the Position field? (And maybe “Not NZ First” in the Company field?)

    That way, Starship will know that they are being supported for rejecting the $158,000.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. slightlyrighty (2,505 comments) says:

    John Dalley.

    National reached an agreement with it’s creditors. The debt is settled with its creditors by money paid to it’s creditors. No law has been broken in respect of this payment.

    Winston has chosen to IGNORE it’s creditors in the mistaken belief that it does not owe the money.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Right of way is Way of Right (1,129 comments) says:

    I think I may set up a charitable trust now, perhaps Achmed Zaoui might be willing to accept this money?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Neil (576 comments) says:

    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 !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Chuck Bird (4,819 comments) says:

    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?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. slightlyrighty (2,505 comments) says:

    Key is on record as saying the voters will make up their own mind about this issue and by and large he is correct.

    However this issue is keeping the EFB off the front pages (conveinient?) and Key is keeping up the pressure on this, especially with Tim Shadboult down in southland.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Max Call (212 comments) says:

    rfhoward Says:
    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.”

    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    NOT Bob
    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.

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

    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

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. RebelHeart (123 comments) says:

    Everybody e-mail ron.mark@parliament.govt.nz and pressure him to roll the idiot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. jocko (111 comments) says:

    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.

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

    Bob Clarkson has done a lot for Tauranga not least the stadium. What has Peters done.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    RebelHeart, I’ve done it twice now over the last week and no reply.

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

    Winston gave this speech to Nelson Grey Power last week, railing against the foreign interests conspiring to buy the elction and how NZF, WTP and EFB were the people’s protectors.

    Speech is on Scoop, and url is here

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0712/S00340.htm

    Ha ttip The Hive for alerting me to the existence

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Calculus (76 comments) says:

    Couldn’t have happened to a more needed fellow !!!!!!!!

    As has been said a vote for New Zealand First is a vote for Labour !!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. pdm (842 comments) says:

    Jocko

    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.

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

    I would nominate the catwalk trust as a good recipient.

    It would be a win win situation. If the Catwalk accept, it is 150 000 towards curing spinal cord injuries (and a cure is only a question of a long when not if).

    And if they refuse the money the ensuing publicity will probably see the big talking tightwads of kiwiblog cough up another 435 dollars in online donations, as with the Starship.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,224 comments) says:

    NPOG:

    And if they refuse the money the ensuing publicity will probably see the big talking tightwads of kiwiblog cough up another 435 dollars in online donations, as with the Starship.

    And you don’t put yourself into this category?

    You never quite got back to me about this the other day. How much of the time you “donate” to paediatric medical research is for your own pecuniary advantage?

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

    “How much of the time you “donate” to paediatric medical research is for your own pecuniary advantage?

    50%, so around 22-5 hours a week is for pecuniary advantage, 50% is unpaid.

    At least that is according to personal department, I am required to work fulltime and I get paid the equivalent of a 50% salary (and a lot less that people I am supposed to be supervising).

    Obviously I see all my time I spent to being some extent to my advantage – but only 50% is paid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,224 comments) says:

    NPOG:

    …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.

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.