Savage attack by Peters on Audrey Young
July 14th, 2008 at 7:16 pm by David FarrarNZPA reports on Winston’s comments at the airport:
Today Mr Peters again said there was no donation.
“I don’t know whether there are any emails at all, whether they’ve been doctored whether they’re in part. I’ve never seen them,” he told reporters.
“The editor of the New Zealand Herald and the Herald journalist Audrey Young can see NZ First’s accounts and talk to our independent auditors, but when they find nothing I want them to both apologise to the public and then resign…
“Don’t you guys get it one of your colleagues is a liar and if she doesn’t like that tell her to sue me.”
In a statement to NZPA, Herald editor Tim Murphy said the paper stood by the story and Young.
“The issue here is simple: Owen Glenn says he donated to New Zealand First. Winston Peters has said and continues to say that Glenn didn’t. The story, based on explicit emails, highlights that gap,” he said.
“The responses by Mr Peters, while strident, do not explain that gap and continue to leave open to interpretation all kinds of possibilities for funding assistance for his party and its interests.
“In the circumstances, we see no value in the offer of examining New Zealand First’s `annual accounts’.”
This is an extraordinary attack on Audrey Young. He seems to be basically accusing her of fabricating or doctoring the e-mails. Now the problem with this theory is what Steve Fisher and Owen Glenn have said:
The Dom Post has comment from Steve Fisher:
Mr Fisher confirmed to The Dominion Post yesterday that he had been in email contact with Mr Glenn in February, though he no longer had copies of those emails.
Advice quoted in the emails was in line with what he been advising Mr Glenn at the time, though he could not recall “the exact wording” and did not know if Mr Glenn had given money to NZ First. He did not know how the e-mails had entered the public arena.
So Fisher is saying the e-mails are in line with his recollection.
And what some have overlooked is Audrey Young actually managed to talk to Owen Glenn on Friday about the e-mails and here is what he said:
Last night, Mr Glenn was in Monaco, and when asked why he had not said in February that he gave money, he said: “I made a decision not to say anything to anybody because there was so much controversy about everything. I was just there to open the business school so I just didn’t want to get caught up in anything … I elected not to say anything.”
So Glenn didn’t use that opportunity to deny the e-mail is authentic or that he donated.
The stakes are very high. Peters has called for the Herald Editor (Tim Murphy) and Political Editor (Audrey Young) to be sacked. But quite what for, I am not sure.
Related posts:
- What you have to believe in to believe Peters did not know
- Peters claims reports are malicious lies
- Scandal worse than online shows
- Young on Peters
July 14th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
There’s a certain symmetry in the email angle isn’t there?
Didn’t take a phone book full Winston, just one.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Audrey Young was in the Gallery during my time in politics and I’d stake my life on the assertion that she wouldn’t fabricate a story. Like any of us she might make an inadvertent error (I’m not saying she has in this case) but she has far too much integrity to lie. I’d be surprised if Winston truly believed his own accusation too… he was notoriously choleric on the topic of individual journos but he knew that while some might be biased, almost none would go so far as to invent stuff.
I’m surprised Murphy so readily turned down the offer to view the Party’s accounts, though. Even if he suspected they wouldn’t provide the answer, it would have least opened the door to the paper requesting, publicly, to see source documents.
Of course there’s always the possibilty that Young and the Herald have been taken in by a hoax designed to damage Peters, the newspaper, or both. Which makes it all the more important that the issue be settled decisively, and soon.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Good to see a lefty journalist doing her job for once. Any chance of seeing Klark subjected to the same kind of scrutiny? I reckon this mess involves Winston Peters, Owen Glen and Helen Klark and all of their respective hangers on in equal parts. In fact who’s to know that if Glenn did indeed give money to NZF, it wasn’t conditional upon that party’s continued support for Labour. (as it was for the Maori Party) This whole thing just reeks of deep and high level corruption. More pressure needs to be applied to Helen Klark. Sure she’s the PM, but that didn’t stop them going after Richard Nixon.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
RedB, I think you are right. I’ve thought all along that Clark was behind this whole tawdry fiasco. The buying off of the Maori Party, the back door funding of Winston’s electoral theft, the sale of political indulgences. This has the makings of Clark’s and Peter’s final abject disgrace.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Perhaps Mike Williams knows all about the NZF donation/loan/deal and how funded….after all, wasn’t he – representing the Party – also involved in support of the OG Consulship? Is this the smoking gun?
Audrey Young should ask him for what he knows – & report his reaction.
Failing him, Nicky Hagar is bound to have ‘obtained’ a copy of the missing emails….
Vote:ready for his next scoop: ‘the hollow supporter’
July 14th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Nicky Hager’s new book – The Hollow Glenn
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
>“Don’t you guys get it one of your colleagues is a liar and if she doesn’t like that tell her to sue me.”
Great idea… get Peters, Jones, Glenn, Fisher, Williams, and Clark on the stand, under oath. I’d like to see Peters patronise a judge the way he patronises anyone else who dares to ask him a question. I’d also like to see Peters ordered to pay hundreds of thousands of bucks in damages, decide that he is going to pay it to charity in secret rather than to the person he defamed, and then be put away in the pokey for contempt of court.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
“…Like any of us she might make an inadvertent error (I’m not saying she has in this case) but she has far too much integrity to lie…”
“…Of course there’s always the possibilty that Young and the Herald have been taken in by a hoax designed to damage Peters, the newspaper, or both. Which makes it all the more important that the issue be settled decisively, and soon…”
All of these things could be avoided by investigating the story first, then publishing the story. Get this straight: If you start with a preconcieved idea of what the story is, you’ll never find anything less. How more simple can it be said? How much more of a warning do you need? The modern method of drip feeding a story as you yourself find out about it, without even knowing what the story is to start with really has to come to an end. There’s a very well known example of another one going on still.
No one knows for sure. Well isn’t that the job of journalist – to know for sure? Isn’t that what seperates them from gossip columnists? Christ on bike, if journalists weren’t so enamoured with editorialising their half examined stories and blogging, they might, just might, remember what their jobs are.
Like the lawyer he is, Winston knows that he doesn’t have to say a thing. He can challenge a lazy media that have resorted to headlines like: “What exactly was donated, Winston?” It doesn’t matter a damn what a half educated public spit at each other over coffee. Not even in election year. Because the next story that runs will have to be an apology from the Herald. They need to prove it and he knows it.
If this story had been delayed by a month and it turned out, through meticulous research, that Winston had lied and that he was caught up in corruption and it was actually proved, what does an extra 4 weeks mean? Nothing. And if he hadn’t, no harm done. Even DPF was pointing out in an earlier post how difficult it is the decipher financial records.
But no, we need gossip NOW, even if we don’t know if it’s gossip.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
“I’ve thought all along that Clark was behind this whole tawdry fiasco.”
Has to be really, its just too long a bow to draw to believe that Glenn could come over here from wherever and go about engineering election outcomes and party support. He just would not have the necessary inside knowledge or the right contacts. The funding deals would have to have been organised by someone with intimate knowledge of the NZ political scene. Glenn had the money. Someone told him where and how it should be spent. Someone ruthless, shrewd, crafty and completely focused on power. Someone who would profit from those actions. Don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes do you?
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
I have no doubt that Clark – the Micro-manager knows exactly what is going on here as does Mike Williams. Winston started digging this hole several months ago, and he has now dug himself in too deep. His arrogance and ego tell him that he can dig himself out, but the walls of his hole are starting to bury him.
But Clark standing beside him (but as far away as she can manage) is a further disgrace. It is totally unacceptable for a senior Minister to be caught out lying. International credibility will be significantly damaged. John Key also now needs to go on the attack and demand the answers from both Clark and Winston. I pray that there is something more which will prove that Winston is a liar. I hope the Nats are just waiting for the front end loader to fill in Winston’s hole once it is deep enough.
Clark to maintain any semblence of credibility muust sack Winston now.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Did anyone else see the letter to the editor in the Herald today from Maire Leadbetter gloating about how upstanding Nicky Hager is and how the world needs more journalists with his intergrity.
There should be a rule that if you write letters to the editor you must state your associations so that average joe blogs don’t mistake you for an independent observer eg Marie Leadbetter (rabid communist and sister of Keith Locke). Another would be Wasim Hasim or whatever his name is that is always going on about Israel but fails to state he runs Students for Free Palestine.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
I suggested years ago on this blog that Winston Peters was “unbalanced”, to put it kindly. Clark always hoped madly that his ” lying” would pass under the radar of public opinion. It may still. I worry.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Goodgod: “…he can challenge a lazy media that have resorted to headlines like: “What exactly was donated, Winston?”
I wouldn’t say the media is lazy so much as suffering from over-commercialisation of its core function. In the 80′s the media’s prime purpose changed from being the guardians of the Fourth Estate into being a money-maker. Hence today’s dumbed-down, sensationalist, sound-bite content fillers for the real content: the ads.
Re: Young. IMO, in the first two terms of this Liarbore govt, Young was one of the most supportive print journalists of the Clark regime. Her bias to me was palpable, verging on a combination of Tapu Misa-stupidity and Radio Left Wing-level of bias. It was awful.
Since the EFA however the whole Herald team appeared not just to change but to actually reverse attitudes. They are obviously not going to back down. Hooray.
It is also an interesting demonstration of media power, that one paper can do this, both with the EFA and now this.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Goodgod has a point, and a good one at that. Sensationalism of course sells newspapers, and though this story has a distinct odour about it, it’s dissapointing that the claims made by both sides todate cannot be supported either by paper trail or, sworn affadavit.
Where are the likes of Wishart when you wish for a good investigative jurno???
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Calling Audrey a liar when one could have much more diplomatically said her facts were wrong is quite a bold step into warfare over what might otherwise have been just a skirmish.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Reminds me of part of an interview I had with Winston in 1994 for a student rag:
Vote:Me: “Can NZ First really be taken seriously?” (The question his minder/girlfriend explicitly told me NOT to ask before the interview)
WP: (Leans forward with trademark glint in his eye and smug smirk) “You listen to me my friend. Fay and Richwhite sure took me seriously, so I suggest you do too.”
At the end of the lecture, ahem, interview, he asked for a copy of the article to be faxed to him, which I never did…probably would have sued me if I had. Some things never change…
July 14th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Here is how Audrey Young should go from here.
Step 1: Get affidavit from Glenn confirming payment to NZ First.
Step 2: Ensuing headline – `How I broke the Bagman of Monte Carlo’!!!
Conclusion: Peters gone by lunchtime.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Well guys and gals, audrey has never been a ” lefty” journo and I have known her for a long time – she has written some good yarns when I have given her some info in the past and I aint a pinko.
She plays it very straight – sure, she has taken a wack at the nats in the past but for good reason. So she is as even handed as I have known a journo to be and I was one.
I think that I might go back to my storage cupboard and drag out some dried scampi.
The money go round on that one was as complicated as I suspect this little saga will prove to be.
Winnie is the most venal of men and our patchy political landscape would be a better place without this particularly offensive hua.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
From Steve Fisher’s comments if the emails are not a copy of the original they’ve clearly been created by an insider, which makes me keep wondering why these emails surfaced now?
If they were sent by somebody who simply wanted the truth to be known, then in all likelihood they would have been sent at the time of the original scandal, however by them being sent now it would tend to lend credence to the idea of somebody purposefully attempting to damage Peters and Labour/Clark.
The question of Who then comes down to who would want to damage one or both of these people and have the knowledge to do so?
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
bustedblonde…. Lets see her balls then. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
ross meurants already seen my girly gonads…
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
I’ve always wondered why he crossed the line from a hard-arsed copper to a cowering whimp.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Having watched winnie being interviewed at the airport I have to confess to being underwhelmed by the performance of the media pack.
Did they all have a nice chat on the way to the airport, a quick latte and make-up check ready for their inane 5mins with the coiffeured poodle? Perhaps a bit or soduku or a trashy mag while awaiting his royal smugness? (no point in planning a ‘proper’ interview or anything…)
I’ve seen more comprehensive questions from commuters questioning their bus fares.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Reid, at the risk of being rude, the mere statement
is a nonsense. With rare exceptions, the papers have always been like that. The mythical “fourth estate”, pursuing truth and justice… never existed except in some forms of golden age style nostalgia. Just for example, the media pandered to Muldoon in the 70′s, sucked up to Kiwi Keith in the 60′s, and and so on.
I still think Winston will get away with it again unless the Herald possesses bigger cojones that I give them credit for. Owen Glenn will go to ground, his agent will have serious memory problems, Winston will deny everything and start slapping writs around, and thye police will do what they are told on the basis of an opinion from Crown Law.
This is despite my total agreement with bustedblonde, Winston is seriously corrupt and venal, but cunningly corrupt and venal. Maybe, just maybe this one (plus the mystery offsider scam) will bring him low, I guess we can but hope. If he does, I for one would have a serious interest in having some competent investigators (and don’t mention that bunch of useless prats called the SFO) having a long hard look at the Scampi affair once more. There’s dirt galore if you can ferret it out.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
have to agree getsaffed..just when things get interesting bloody plunkett goes on holiday and RNZ puts some tweeny gal who I bet wears pigtails , on to do the morning stint. softer than a soft thing she was. No-one has the courage to stand up to him and make him deliver – I think Garner had it sorted on Hootons talk back last night – money didnt quite go in and then it went out to pay some of NZ Firsts current liabilities – make sense to me.
Im also aware of another minor party who got a big fat check that has never been noted offically so creative accounting appears to be second nature to the politcal flotsam we are forced to put up with under MMP.
Trouble is I was only ever told that verbally by the CEO in question and you really need to be able to follow the money.
Its not that easy.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Oooooo do tell. p-p-p-p-please!!
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Bustedblonde. Its easy. If you can get hold of bank statements. Money in/money out. Reconcile against records. VERY simple. (No bank statements, no truth)
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Apologies for off topic.
Ed, I don’t disagree the profit motive has always been there for the papers to make money – look at the Hortons.
What I was meaning was that the focus from the late-80′s changed and suddenly we started getting considerably increased sensationalist celebrity pap and whole sections of ads and huge sports and ‘lifestyle’ sections. All of which distracted from the increasingly sparse and fragmented actually important news and whose sole purpose always, was to sell ads.
In my opinion, the executives had changed the focus, from providing a good news product to providing a good vehicle to make money. Sorry if I wasn’t too clear.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Thats what i mean you need the paper – the hard copy to nail this stuff.. thats the bit that aint easy. but I know the book will be easy to write!
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Well then, challenge Peter’s to deliver-up bank statements. How hard can that be? If he refuses. Snap. Chances are… ‘yer got him.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
The problem is you’re thinking about the media all wrong. You have to understand that you are the product, not the customer. The customer is the one who pays – that would be the advertiser. The product is the thing that is being sold, which is your eyeballs.
Once you look at it like that, you suddenly understand. The job of the media is to deliver as many eyeballs as possible, preferably of the sort that a) can’t tell the difference between and the content and ads, and b) buy any old crap that you put an ad in for. Ideally any media will need to deliver the maximum possible volume of those eyeballs, since all the traditional media is measured by number of eyeballs, not success in targeting. That is to say, lowest common denominator pap.
On the plus side, the advent of new media means fragmentation of the market – more TV channels, more newspapers, blogs, articles. Better still, more online media, in which we can tell how many people looked at the ad, and even better, how many people clicked on it. This suddenly shifts us from being interested in eyeballs to being interested in targeting. Targeting works better when your content is narrower – mass market media have very low engagement with the viewer. I’m convinced that over time the entities that deliver real, hard hitting content will start to gain the advertising dollar.
This means that the niche players – home handyman channel for example – are enormously valuable to advertisers. Combine this with the rise of elections as a form of sport – look at us all talking about the US election, that wouldn’t have happened 10 years ago – and I reckon things are looking good for better and deeper political analysis.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
bank statements may not provide the answers you think.
Theoretically, if one had the time/inclination you could probably launder the money into NZ First without it being immediately obvious.
Further I would suggest people look very hard at what Winston has said in his statements, I suspect he has used word forms capable of either more than one meaning, or a very precise meaning
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
the problem is that glenns money may never have got to NZ first bank accts – it may well have been lodged in a trust acct and then from there used to pay charities.. think about it – then poo can honestly say no money has been received – technicality but true.. cummon all you legal beagles – its it possible?
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
yip my point Adam –
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Now that Meurant has had a spiritual rebirth perhaps some journos should be asking him some searching questions – hes had a rethink on his red squad days so maybe he could shed some light on the inner workings of NZ First and even, joy on joy, Scampi!
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Why don’t you go after the source of the leak?
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
PaulL. You’re absolutely correct. There’s huge challenges threatening the survival of the likes of the NZH. Aside from the competition for advertising revenue from the internet (and other media), there’s far less people who can even afford to buy a copy of the NZH now, on a daily basis.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Paul M:
The NZH like all “antique” media though, has credibility in the market and you can’t buy that, you have to build it and longevity of presence is a key factor.
The internet is a risk, threat and opportunity to so many businesses and industries you couldn’t possibly count them.
I have confidence in journalism, its professional institutions, its ethics and its future.
I deplore however the commercialisation-at-the-expense-of-journalism-situation.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Unless the money is paid in cash, there will be a paper trail. And any cash deposit made into any bank account over the sum of $10,000, then the depositor is required by law, to disclose his/her, identity.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Reid: Sure its got street cred. But now, there’s a whole new generation of consumers (the majority whom probably have never read a Herald, let alone buy one!) They opt for other, cheaper channels of communication to source news, products and services.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Why is this thread so focused on the paper trail though?
Like it’s pretty clear at the mo.
So Winston’s disputing it.
Big surprise.
Isn’t it more important to identify who is behind this story? It didn’t happen by accident.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Because Winstone has made a public offering to have NZF’s books examined, thats why. Just follow the paper trail and all will be revealed. I guarantee he will not allow an inependent audit of NZF’s books. He is calling NZH bluff.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Paul M: who said it was one deposit? Who said it went to an NZ1 bank account? Unless Owen Glenn chooses to give over documentation then we’ll get nowhere. I suspect someone might be hoping that Winston will accuse Owen of lying. Then we’ll see what evidence turns up.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Paul M: “Because Winstone has made a public offering to have NZF’s books examined, thats why. ”
Yeh but do ya really think Winston would’ve said that if he hadn’t checked it first?
That’s not going to prove anything more than we already know, I’d suggest.
Indeed the act of checking the books would give Winston ammo to fire back.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Dunno. He might be bluffing. Doubt he’s read them himself. Need an insider to advise what to look for in the books, and whether looking at the books will do it.
Vote:July 14th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Peter’s is not as wry as he use to be. No where near it. The NZH should take up his bizzare challenge. They can’t lose. If they’re smart, they’ll tease the readers and draw the exmanation out. And if they find nothing amiss what can Winstone do?? Nothing more than I ‘told you so’.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 12:03 am
PaulL, Winnie may be bluffing but IMO, this is his whole career on the line and he’s not that much of a gambler.
I too also doubt he’s read the books, but I would be very surprised if he didn’t know what’s in them, in detail.
At this point my conclusion is that this is a major play against him personally, not something against NZF generally.
Everything points to a major betrayal, either by a “friend” or an enemy.
I actually like Winston and I wonder if that was one of the lessons he got from the master. I hope he survives with honour, and I also hope he is now-where near the new Centre-Right Coalition.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Besides, lawyers make the worst accountants and vice versa.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 12:05 am
No Paul, it gives him a platform. If you investigate and find nothing, he’ll proclaim innocence. Better not to start unless you know you’re going to find something.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 12:13 am
Not sure if this has been canvassed already. Try this scenario. The 100k loan which got Mike Williams all tripped up is repaid, but not to Owen Glen (or associated interests. Bear in mind Owen Glenn is the master of Cayman SPVs and offshore trusts). What if the Labour party via a trust intermediary transferred that money to NZF as an anonymous donation, Owen says “Thank you anonymous Labour I accept that transfer as repayment”, Labour is in the clear, Mike Williams doesn’t “officially” tell NZ First the source of the money, NZ First says “Thank you anonymous trust settler, I accept your anonymous donation.” NZ First is in the clear. At least legally if not ethically or morally. As long as the Poohster genuinely (or at least provably) is unaware of the ultimate source of the funds.
No one has technically lied, all are complicit but nothing illegal or technically untruthful has happened. I mean, just hypothetically, if I was going to arbitrage campaign spending rules thats how I’d do it. Actually I’d have another couple of steps in the middle (maybe a nominee company managed by a blue chip law firm) but you know what I mean.
Ask Mike Williams when was that 100k paid back, and to whom, and does he have a receipt for it.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 12:19 am
oops – take out the word anonymous on line 4………. or maybe not if the polls are right.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 12:35 am
Personally, I think its a god-given marketing coup for NZH, if they take up the challenge. And besides, what else might an examination of NZF”s books reveal?? Believe me, Peter’s is bluffing.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 5:26 am
I listened again to ZB last night and their recording of Winnies denial.
He definitely said there has never been any donation into his personal account, but (one can only assume) did not mention the NZF accounts. I hope the media pick up on that one.
I think Winston is playing a high stakes poker game here. He must be confident that OG can’t be reached very easily.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Bogusnews – I noticed that too.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Bookkeeping is boring.
Vote:It is dull.
BUT it keeps the straight honest truth, and that is something that the editor of the Herald would not know if he tripped over it. Hence his hesitancy in taking up the offer to inspect in detail the boring accounting records of New Zealand First. For Winston knows what is in there and it is completely contradictory to what Audrey Young wrote. The Herald will not take up the offer because it will prove, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that they are bunch of people who are reckless with the truth.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:32 am
“Here’s the deal,” Mr Peters said. “The editor of the New Zealand Herald and the Herald journalist Audrey Young can see New Zealand First’s accounts and talk to our independent auditors, but when they find nothing I want them to apologise to the public and then resign.
“We have to have some accountability right now. It’s a case of put up or shut up.”
But Mr Murphy said the paper saw no value in taking up the offer.
“The issue here is simple,” he said. “Owen Glenn says he donated to New Zealand First. Winston Peters has said and continues to say that Glenn didn’t. The story, based on explicit emails, highlights that gap. The responses by Mr Peters, while strident, do not explain that gap and continue to leave open to interpretation all kinds of possibilities for funding assistance for his party and its interests. In the circumstances, we see no value in the offer of examining New Zealand First’s ‘annual accounts’.”
Of course you see no value. Because you know you’re out of line and can no longer support the allegations with proof.
The NZ Herald are about to find out that being a media based, judge, jury and executioner doesn’t have the same authority as a real court. They seem to think the existence of “all kinds of possibilities” means that their favourite accusations are true.
There’s a bigger problem with this way of reporting than whether Winston returns to parliament or whether National takes the election. Once people accept the means of this bad journalism – because it suits their ends – it can be turned on anyone at any time with the same lack of proof. Winston has the balls and the money to sue, Average Joe doesn’t. I do not support the nomination of the NZ Herald as the new Grand Jury of New Zealand.
Does anyone remember fighting against the EFB? Why do that if you then support the Herald in usurping the law? The EFA makes the end more important than the means. Sound familiar? Remember Chris Trotter saying some corruption is ok as long as it ends how the left want it to end? Democracy can be undermined in a number of ways and bowing to the undeveloped whim of the masses is one of them.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Redbaiter (3153) Add karma Subtract karma +10 Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
“Good to see a lefty journalist doing her job for once. Any chance of seeing Klark subjected to the same kind of scrutiny?”
YEP, WELL SAID, Redbaiter…….
Are the lefty journalists still afraid of/in thrall to Ms Klark while Winnie doesn’t have quite the same effect any more for some reason?
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Gomango
You are quite correct. If NZ1 has reapid the $158,000 stolen from the taxpayer and there is evidence that this sum has been paid to charities then the many small donations to the party that Winston has claimed accounts for their ability to make the donations then if a small donation is $100 how credible is it that 1580 members/others did so or 16 donated $9999. More likely small donations are in the $25/50 area making approx 4200 donations to equal $158,000. Not sure of the size of NZ1 membership but would be surpirsed if was 4000+ and astounded if every one made a donation.
Vote:On the e-mail aspect I just wonder if the insider who hacked the parliamentary server to steal Don Brashs e-mails has also stolen this one? UNlikely to have been National, Act, progressives or Snakeoil Dunnnnnne whihc leaves The Greens and Labour with my money on Labour.
July 15th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
If Audrey reads this: If you decide to call the shitbag’s bluff and sue him for defamation, you’ve got a pledge of $100 towards any legal costs not covered by APN, and a matching donation to the charity of your choice. In dishonour of Mr Peters, I’d suggest one that provides adult literacy courses or provides support for those who suffer from paranoid delusions.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Oh boo hoo. In the good old days, when an MP chewed out a journo it was called entertainment. And it was bloody good. Remember those classic Muldoon clips…?
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
bustedblonde is onto it. The scampi affair merits further examination. There are people who know exactly what went on, and who gave brown envelopes to whom. It needs someone like Wishart to ask the right people the right questions – can’t say more than that.. Can say that the deposit of funds to a trust account to be used to discharge NZF liabilities is both a possible scenario and in my view highly likely to have occurred.
Vote:July 15th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
To follow the ‘paper trail’ you have to know where it starts.
A forensic accountant would have a chance of following the trail if he knew and had access to the details of the account from which Owen Glen made the alleged payment, i.e. the start of ‘the trail’.
However, its not a physical package of money with serial numbers allowing it to be readily traced. Take the proposal that it was forwarded on from Labour to NZ1 as the repayment of the ‘loan’ to Labour, without the surrounding, probably verbal agreements, there would be little to link the transactions, ‘in’ and ‘out’ of the account, there is no reason they would even be of the same amount.
Hence, the audited accounts are probably not worth looking at without the ability to at least look a lot deeper into the source details of the deposit transactions that allowed the payment to the charities. And potentially back into the bank accounts of the depositors,..and so on..and that’s where Winnie knows the investigation will founder.
Vote: