And then he follows up with a nice juicy hit on Clark to cement her defeat and ensure she goes out under a dark cloud.

Glenns always struck me as one not to trifle with. Alas most pollies arent that clever when dealing with business guys like Glenn. The Glenns of this world play the long game and are very very paitent in awaiting their revenge

Niice DPF. I like it how you throw in that caveat, given National’s $1.4 million in secret donations during 2005.

It seems to me that the prize for this Owen Glenn character is to obtain some kind of diplomatic post in Monaco, in order to facilitate some scheme or other which we have no way of finding out about. But one thig we do know is that Monaco is itself a corrupt and venal cesspit of intrigue operating on the international laundering of stolen and dubious money, and lil’ ol’ EnZed is in his sights as the most obvious sucker on the block.

All this should scream a warning and set off warning flares – but is the general public aware of any of this? It doesn’t seem to be.

Sounds like standard practice to give an award to these business guys for…doing business!

Yet he doesn’t live here, pay tax here (or anywhere from some reports), vote here, or even use the odd public toilet here?

Bagman …. hmmmm …. I remember Labour getting very excited about National possibly having a bagman. Shame National didn’t have one like Glenn!

A false allegation. …and even if it were true, you’ve actually got the hypocritical gall to witter on over something so minor in the face of the major deceit of the Labour Party and NZ First?? get a life mate, but first get a sense of perspective. Leftist idiot.

If you want me to state that I agree that they committed no crime – sure, fine. But if you refer back to my original comment (please), it is not the legality of it, it was the trustworthiness of EB vs Hellen’s “Mob”. And my point was that trustworthiness is something that is not a sliding scale. You either are, or you are not.

I’ve not been pushing for any sort of admission of a crime. I took on the statement that they were more trustworthy.

I think I have put a reasonable case forward that the EBs were not trustworthy by their own standards as well as the community at large.

As for the EBs being “really committed Christians”, I will not debate that as their commitment is very public. If a son leaves the EBs, he is excommunicated from the EBs and is not to associate with any of them ever again. Of course that includes his mum, dad, brothers, sisters, his wife and children.

(Think about that for a moment. Put yourself in that position. Is that really just a sign of commitment as a Christian?)

You have to admire THAT commitment to Christianity (Jesus loved the prostitutes and money lenders, but I no longer have a son/husband/father). And admire also their “flexibility in trustworthiness” when it comes to trying to surreptitiously influence an election in a country or two that they will not vote in themselves as well as deny having done so when confronted. Now THAT is being a committed Christian in my book.

The EBs are a poisoned chalice when it comes to NZ and AUS elections for quite some time. Their donations would be as welcome as Owen Glenn at Hellen’s valedictory speech.

EBs did something illegal? No. Are they trustworthy? No.

Fin.

Donating is not enough to get an ONZM. Shit, if Roger Kerr donated money (as I am sure he does) I doubt that he would get a gong. You’re not supposed to be able to purchase the things, you have to do something more than just give money over, even if that money is to a third party (and there is a lot of suspicion that the money that got the gong was that donated to Labour, not that donated to the business school). It was an incredibly bad look, the fact that Labour thought it was OK just shows how out of touch they are.

@petal:
(a)…tried to meddle when didn’t vote… I read awhile ago they’ve changed that non-vote position but anyway who cares? Just because they don’t vote it doesn’t follow they therefore should stay out of politics altogether.

(b) …should have done so openly… I agree and I’m sure they learned their lesson. The fact they didn’t however doesn’t mean it was underhand. How many improperly and unauthorised political advertisments have we seen lately? Some idiots believe that simply because something is secret that automatically makes it sinister. Holding that attitude through life IMHO, is so incredibly dumb, the mighty English language fails me in my search for a sufficiently strong adjective.

(c) …should have owned up when confronted… I agree again, but the fact they didn’t own up was not illegal and that’s the only standard by which we should judge them. If you feel entitled to make an ethical judgement against them for not owning up then that’s your prerogative but it don’t mean diddly squat in a court of law, and that’s the only accepted place where public wrongdoing is punished.

petal, none of your arguments change the fact these guys committed no crime and yet, they were and continue to be treated by large numbers of idiots as if they did.

He deserves the ONZM (even as a quasi-NZer), but have no idea why all this is being ignored.

I do like the “heavily committed Christians” label. You should be a spin doc

What a better way than to approach the Labour party at their hour of need and offer a seemingly “no strings attached loan and donation”? It appeals to their sense of greed and need. Then simply bide your time and wait until an opportune moment to “leak” some emails and word of the donation to the media.

Then there is the cherry on the top. Make a small(er) donation to one of the Government’s partners. Now who would you choose? The Greens are unlikely to accept a donation from an overseas business person, but New Zealand First needs money and is lead by a self-serving leader who is convinced that he is above the law. Perfect. Now, make the donation and wait until your fool makes his declaration stating that he didn’t receive any donations. Trap set and inescapable hole dug. Time to leak another set of emails to the media.

Job done.

Either that or Mr Glenn is a big mouth politically unaware expat who likes to splash his cash around. Either way he is the gift that keeps on giving

Well that’s how Hulun painted it with the help of the idiot media and the large supply of useful idiots in the general population. The reality however is that the Nat’s Billboard campaign kicked off the EFA and that the EB were simply a convenient and useful scapegoat that was ruthlessly exploited by idiots.

As someone said above, they were never charged. You can bet Crown Law was asked to closely examine their behaviour and the fact they were never charged despite such scrutiny is significant. Secondly, what the hell is wrong with putting something in your letterbox during election time? Thirdly, the cult status they were awarded by the idiots is an element of unnecessary and vicious nastiness that I deplore – since everyone except apparently the idiots know the EB are in fact serious established heavily committed Christians, not some hippy commune.

Petal>>In the same sense that someone is more trustworthy for only stealing $1000 instead of $2000?

PhilBest>that is one crass comment, since when have any of the EB been charged with “stealing” anything?

@PhilBest: I was trying to point out that being trustworthy is an absolute measurement, not a sliding scale.

The EBs have been trying to influence the outcome of an election while at the same time trying not to be known for doing so and when asked if they were responsible for the leaflets they denied involvement in it.

To me, that is not trustworthy in any absolute sense. And in the sense of the teachings the EB are supposed to adhere to, well off the mark. (Those who live by the sword… etc).

I wonder if we would have had the current Electoral Finance Act if the EBs had been up front about that particular campaign. In my mind, the ‘trustworthiness’ of the EBs during that particular election was THE event that set the wheels in motion that is now the EFA.

Please click -ve karma this time. I’m sure DPF isn’t going to be pleased to have to fix it twice

What a f##king mess! How could the corrupt bastards get this so wrong… they had a rich donor, a perfect mechanism for hiding it from the public and they still stuffed it up…. You have got to wonder when the govt can’t even be corrupt without stuffing it up just how incompetent they really are. Snap election ! End the rot !

It was obviously a long-term project, in two parts: political donations and civic generosity via the Business School.

It was obviously setup to be a case of awarding the ambassadorship following the opening of the Business School, presumably in a background of warm public acclaim.

Instead it was clumsily mishandled on a colossal scale (snigger).

Was it incompetence or artful sabotage?