The “massive difference”

July 30th, 2008 at 7:11 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters insists that there is a “massive” difference between his party getting funding from corporate donors via secret trusts and other parties getting it.

He won’t say what, but is promising to spell it out in Parliament today. …

Outside the House, Mr Peters was asked what the difference was between his party getting large donations from corporate donors via secret trusts and other parties getting it.

Mr Peters said the difference was “massive”, but that the reporters were not capable of understanding it. He said he would explain it today.

I agree with Winston the differences are massive. To help Winston explain, let us look at some of the differences:

  1. NZ First has railed against such trusts for 15 years
  2. The NZ First Leader personally benefits from some or all of the trust donations, not the party (payment of legal fees)
  3. The NZ First Leader personally solicits money for such trusts (Sir Robert Jones and Professor Wright testifying)
  4. The NZ First Leader’s parliamentary staff collect money for such trusts (Meurant and McClay)
  5. The NZ First Board have no idea the trust even exists (President says he has never heard of it in eight years on the board, nor has the Deputy Leader)
  6. Donors think by donating to the trusts they are donating to NZ First (Owen Glenn and Sir Robert)
  7. The trusts are so secret that no-one even knows they exist until the media expose them (for which they are told they should apologise and resign)
  8. The trusts do not declare any donations to NZ First
  9. The trusts are run by the personal lawyer and the brother of the NZ First Leader
  10. The trusts are not declared on the Register of Pecuniary Interests

So that is massive differences indeed between other parties and NZ First. Sadly for Winston his funding arrangements are less transparent and more covert in almost every aspect possible.

Tags: ,

54 Responses to “The “massive difference””

  1. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    and..tell us d.p.f…how does all this line up against nationals’ trusts/slush-funds-of-choice..?

    the waitemata trust..?..and the ruahine(?) trust..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    [DPF: None of the above apply to those trusts. That is the point of the post]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Grant (444 comments) says:

    So Phil, can I take it from your last comment that you’ve known about the Spencer trust for as long as you’ve known about the Waitemata Trust?
    To think that you’ve sat on this goldmine of knowledge for so long….

    I dont know why you bother to defend peters when he certainly would be in no rush to defend you.
    G

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    phil-u-troll.

    peters must go.

    he’s even more corupt than hulun and mikhael.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Bryan Spondre (556 comments) says:

    philu: because the trusts you mentioned have not been kept secret and their activities are documented.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. clintheine (1,571 comments) says:

    Phil… so two “wrongs” make a right? You must be feeling generous today defending Winston. How the mighty have fallen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..and their activities are documented..”

    really..!..do tell..!

    wot..?..lists of ‘anonymous’ donors..?..and how much they gave..?

    and..um..!..just where may we access these ‘documented activities’..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    and i am not ‘defending peters’..

    ..i am just pointing out political/’moral’ hypocrisies..

    nothing more..nothing less..

    but..as per national/labour(?)..

    ..it would seem peters has broken no laws..

    ..(unfortunately he can’t be charged for his hypocrisy-crimes..

    ..either..)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. 3-coil (1,222 comments) says:

    fillewe (7:31am) – DPF has just listed 10 ways that the Spencer Trust is …shall we say…”unique”. David answered your question before you even asked it. Read the post before you start your commenting on it – it might save us all a lot of wasted time.

    PS After Hulun’s grandstanding clumsy put-down of John Key’s maori pronunciation in the house a couple of weeks back, her total butchering of the pronunciation of “Ruahine” yesterday in parliament was particularly ironic!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..The NZ First Leader personally solicits money for such trusts (Sir Robert Jones and Professor Wright testifying)..”

    um..!..wasn’t key the bag-man for the 2005 election-campaign ‘solicitations’..?

    once again..presenting/using the hypocrisy-test..

    ..what’s the difference..?

    if it walks like a bag-man..

    ..quacks like a bag-man..

    it likely is a bag-man..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. davidp (3,587 comments) says:

    What is even more embarrassing is that he’s the Foreign Affairs Minister. Other MPs who are corrupt, blatant liars, and hypocrites, such as Field or the ACT woman whose name I have forgotten, at least stay home so you can hope that people overseas haven’t heard of them. Whereas Peters parades around the world.

    Presumably he arrives for an official visit to some corrupt third world country and their foreign minister is being briefed that Peters receives almost as much in bribes from the racing industry as the locals do. He’ll be flying to some Asian country to represent us, and the people he is going to meet will be wondering why he hates Asian people so much. And the government of any western country will be scratching their heads wondering why NZ is the only country in the world, except for North Korea, whose foreign minister thinks inward investment is a bad thing. And if Peters REALLY is the best person that Clark could find for this vital job, then what does that say about the rest of the Labour Government who stayed home.

    The new national Government should indicate that its Minister of Foreign Affairs will spend his or her first 100 days in office traveling around the world apologising for the image that Peters has created of NZ and explaining that we’re not all anti-Asian bigots.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Christ phil, Peters said that he DIDN’T do solicitations EVER. Possible difference there.

    davidp, that woman was Donna Awatere Huata.

    “The new national Government should indicate that its Minister of Foreign Affairs…”

    Heh, but what if it’s Winston?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Gooner (995 comments) says:

    “wot..?..lists of ‘anonymous’ donors..?..and how much they gave”

    Phil, the donor and amount are not anonymous. The donor is the Waitemata Trust (or the trustees of more the point), and the amount is declared.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. homepaddock (408 comments) says:

    We should be grateful that NZ is so insignificant. This level of hypocrisy from a Foreign Minister of a a country which mattered to the world would be an international outrage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    yes..it would seem peters’ lied..

    now..what was that hollow-man 2005 national campaign built on..?

    that’s right..!..the veritable ’tissue of lies’..

    eh..?

    (just wheeling out that hypocrisy-meter again..eh..?..)

    phil(whoar.co.z)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Paul Marsden (998 comments) says:

    davidp: I was in Hong Kong in the 1990’s, when Peter’s face and words condeming Asian migration to NZ, were splashed on the front page of the South China Post. As a result, the residential property market in Auckland, literally crashed overnight. He single-handedly, managed to curtail Asian immigration in less than the blink of an eye.

    Peter’s disdain for Asian’s, is widely known in that part of the world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..Phil, the donor and amount are not anonymous. The donor is the Waitemata Trust (or the trustees of more the point)..”

    oh..!..right..!

    a bitta ‘spin-practice’ there..eh gooner..?

    um..!..psstt!!..i don’t think you fooled anyone..

    eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Inventory2 (10,404 comments) says:

    It’s not the hypocrisy of the Foreign Minister that concerns me most HP – it is the PM’s hypocricy – attacking National for their DISCLOSED trusts, while defending Peters for his lack of transparency.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Inventory2 (10,404 comments) says:

    philu…

    you are right…

    the Hollow Men controversy was indeed built on a tissue of lies…

    the lies, hysteria and faux-outrage of the left….
    eh… ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Paul Marsden (998 comments) says:

    Good Editorial in todays NZH

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Ryan Sproull (7,259 comments) says:

    the Hollow Men controversy was indeed built on a tissue of lies…

    the lies, hysteria and faux-outrage of the left….
    eh… ?

    Of course. That’s why all of the libel suits left Hager and his publisher destitute.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Inventory2 (10,404 comments) says:

    You’re not wrong Paul – they really lay into Clark and Peters – I’ve just posted on it

    http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/07/herald-on-peters.html

    This is how it closes

    “His reluctance to explain this trust must have another explanation and it behoved the Prime Minister to find it. She is responsible for the probity of all her ministers. If the standards she has enforced so far have a purpose higher than her political interests she will not limit them to her own party, she will confront Mr Peters properly and tell the country the truth.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. david (2,561 comments) says:

    phil,
    At the risk of prolonging your trolling and knowing that a logical argument will not make a blind bit of difference to your particularly cynical and bogoted attitudes to commerce, employment and profits, there is plenty of evidence that the structure and activities of the Nats Trusts are designed to ensure anonymity of donations and NOT ONE SHRED of evidence that the veil of secrecy as to the identity of donors has ever been lifted.

    Not a skeric (skerrick?) or scrap of evidence has ever been produced, just innuendo and jealous sniping from the left – you are the proof.

    Fact – money donated for National Party campaigning did go to the Waitemata Trust.
    Fact – The Waitemata Trust aggregated donations and made lump sum donations in its own name to the National Party
    Fact – Donations were declared, acknowledged and accounted for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. LabourMustBeLiquidated (290 comments) says:

    Winston eh? You’ve gotta admire the balls of this guy. Just denies everything, doesn’t even attempt to explain anything. Of course, he probably feels emboldened because his corruption is being sheltered by the PM, who ironically has a history of doing the same thing, eg move on, nothing to see here people.

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

    Is phool saying that the Spencer trust is conected to Peters????

    Thats not what Peters says. Are you calling Peters a liar phool?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Pascal (1,969 comments) says:

    Inventory2, the PM needs to support Winston to keep her ailing government tottering along until she can find a way to rort this election. Her chokehold on the Electoral Commission and the means of getting their covert, third party campaigns running through the unions and the public service are the starting points for this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    it paid his legal bills..numbnuts..

    ..is that ‘connection’ enough..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Inventory2 (10,404 comments) says:

    Agreed Pascal – but from what the jungle drums are now saying, it doesn’t seem as though her unwavering support of Peters is related to the ETS law and Clark’s problem in getting the necessary numbers. It doesn’t look as if she will get her “legacy” legislation through in this term of the Parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Inventory2 (10,404 comments) says:

    phil u said “it paid his legal bills..numbnuts..

    ..is that ‘connection’ enough..?

    Phil – Bob Jones didn’t give Peters $25k for his legal bills. He made a $25k donation to NZ First which NZ First never received. I don’t know how your mind works (although I have my suspicions!), but to me, it seems like a clear-cut case of fraud.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    is that legally..’fraud’..?

    seems somewhat ‘grey’ to my (legally) untrained mind..

    others will know..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

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

    So you ARE calling Peters a liar or not? Shithead.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    I think the “massive difference” with Winston is that he has enough blindly loyal voters who will put him back in power regardless. I know, I know, it’s disgusting, but sadly, true. And he’s indispensible to the PM who holds the leash of all the agencies that at one time should have been the apolitical checks and balances on executive power.

    The same phenomenon applies to Helen Clark, Carlos Chavez, and Vladimir Putin. Their mandates are electoral, not moral. Numbers of support don’t make something right. That’s the Achilles Heel of Democracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. mara (794 comments) says:

    Helen’s piles must be bleeding from the pressure of denying her overriding instinct to eviscerate Peters every time he rises to blink and smirk in the
    House. As the old C&W song title goes, “If I’d a shot him years ago, I’d be outta jail by now.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Owen McShane (1,226 comments) says:

    David, I think you should post the URL for Bassett’s devastating essay on Winston and the Racing industry. Bassett is an ex Minister of Racing so he knows something about the topic.

    I cannot because it was sent directly to me as a word document. It’s called “Buying Political Interest”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. dave strings (608 comments) says:

    Fill You

    1) “wasn’t key the bag-man for the 2005 election-campaign ’solicitations’”

    He may well have been, but HE WASN’T THE PARTY LEADER AT THAT TIME, so the statement stands unopposed

    2) it paid his legal bills..numbnuts….is that ‘connection’ enough..?

    Did it? The Ownes money went straight to the lawyer and was credfited to Peters’ outstanding bill. No one, anywhere, has established thatt he Spencer Trust made any payment on that, or any other legal bill of Mr W. Spencer Peters. Therefore, redfaced and blue nutted (you are teaching me bad blogging habits) withdraw your expletive and apologies, or do a Winston and attack instead to avoid acknowledging a mistake, or state that you are a party to the transactions of the Spencer Trust!

    Ha!

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

    philu Just like Luigi and his supporters you are an ethical and moral free zone. You and he and his supporters are incapable of understanding the concepts of disclosure and transperancey. These are but 2 of the historically accepted principles of good governance.

    Like Luigi you and your sort are the first to squeal like stuck pigs if any one else offends ( in your opinion and evidence by your blathering on about the Waitemata Trust)

    To wit you complain about behaviour and then support the same behaviour depending upon the person.

    But worst still you are incapable of deducing different behaviour.

    In short you are 2 sandwiches short of a picnic the lift doesnt go to your top floor.

    You are in good company with Luigi.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. dave strings (608 comments) says:

    3) “is that legally..’fraud’..? seems somewhat ‘grey’ to my (legally) untrained mind..”

    There is an offence at law called ‘fraudulent conversion”, wherein someone takes money provided for a particular purpose (lets say supporting the election campaign of a political party,) and instead use it for a different purpose (lets say paying their own legal bills with it), thereby ‘converting” it to a pecuniary benefit for themselves. This is illegal, and essentially what the constant ‘nothing illegal here’ bleating is about. If this is what happened, it would be VERY DIFFICULT to keep the police out of the matter now, and to all appearances, Sir Bob Jones is going to get the facts about how his money was used one way or another and if it was ‘converted’ I bet he’ll “lay an information” as the law would require someone to do!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Ross Miller (1,705 comments) says:

    PhilBest re your 9.38. Not sure this time round and certainly it won’t be Tauranga that puts him over the top. My understanding is that polling shows Bridges is beating him at a canter. Whether he can make 5% is a moot point. Convention has it that minor parties pick up votes come the campaign … but I don’t think these are ‘conventional’ times.
    What I think we will see is the two party squeeze and if that happens NZF should be out (and a good job too).

    Up here in the Far North which was once a stronghold of NZF their organisation and support base has been decimated with many of their high profile supporters jumping ship to National (including members of the Peter’s whanau).

    And his stupid attack on Foss will not have helped matters. It backfired big time and Peters was left with egg on his face.

    And I do think that Key focusing on Clark’s double standards and her refusal to ask the questions (a repeat of the TOR fiasco in the Field affair) is smart tactics. Peters is toast and the stink is now attaching itself to Labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Owen McShane (1,226 comments) says:

    Thanks. I was going to do the search when a visitor arrived.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    How can Dear Leader be happy with this minister, for fucks sake they are as bad as each other. If ever we needed an example of how power corrupts then this issue stands out like dog balls. I can just imagine the howls from the socialists if any MP from National tried this on, why should we have to put up with these charlartans?. Surly the evidence speaks for itself, NZ last and the Liarbores have the stench of corruption within their ranks, prehaps those on the opposition benches should start wearing gas masks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..philu Just like Luigi and his supporters you are an ethical and moral free zone. You and he and his supporters are incapable of understanding the concepts of disclosure and transperancey. These are but 2 of the historically accepted principles of good governance…”

    yeah right..gd..that’s why i support the green party policy of no anonymous donations over $1,000..

    so g.d…just blowing it out your butt..?..still/again..?

    eh..?

    and i must say..this moral indignation from the supporters of a party that is historically ‘bought’ long before any voter walks into the booth..

    ..is both gobsmacking..

    ..and dead funny..!

    let’s talk trusts..!..

    and buying ‘influence’/policy/law/mp’s/political parties..!

    eh..?

    (whoar..!..)

    (heh-heh..!..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..dave strings (160) Add karma Subtract karma +2 Says:
    July 30th, 2008 at 9:58 am

    Fill You

    1) “wasn’t key the bag-man for the 2005 election-campaign ’solicitations’”

    He may well have been, but HE WASN’T THE PARTY LEADER AT THAT TIME, so the statement stands unopposed..”

    (heh..!..thanks for that..y’know..the confirmation of the bagman role played by key..

    ..but he’s changed his spots..?..y’say..?..

    ..do you have video of when that actually happened..?

    ..was it scary..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

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

    Philu.

    If an individual or corporation makes a donation to National, via the Waitemata trust, the donation is made to the trust who makes a lump sum donation to National. That funding is then DECLARED in National’s returns.

    The donors know this, the receivers of the donation know this, and National knows this. This is all open and above board. Where you and many others, (including DPF I believe) have an issue is the anonymous nature of the donors to the trust. Now when I see the vindictive nature of individuals on both sides of the political landscape I can understand why some would like to retain a level of anonymity in their financial support but that does not remove the obligation of a political party to declare the level of funding, as National do.

    What I and others do not condone, is the operation of a trust so secret, even the party of benefit does not seem to know about it, even though the leader of that party solicits funds for this trust that is managed by the leaders brother. That people donate to this trust on the basis that they are supporting this party and it’s MP’s yet these funds do not appear in a return of the party’s accounts as required by law. That the legal bills of its leader who is instigating private prosecutions are being paid for by the trust, even though the leader whose bills are being paid is not aware of the trust, or that this trust is paying the legal bills of the leader in question, even though it appears that this leader is appearing to be soliciting funds for this trust of whose existence he is unaware.

    What I am also disturbed about is The fact that the racing industry actively campaigned for NZ First, and Winston requested the racing portfolio, while a family involved in the racing industry gave amounts too small to be legally required to be reported, possibly up to 15 times.

    All this while Winston railed against secret trusts. If I were Winston I would want to know why the hell all these people didn’t contact Winston while he was railing against secret trusts and shadowy overseas donations buying policy and influence
    and tell him to lay off the criticism because NZ first was doing exactly what he was fighting against. But then I would suggest that he didn’t need to be informed. He already knew.

    Philu, If you can’t see the hypocrisy in that, I suggest you get a dictionary.

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

    Dave Strings 10.03am –
    I’m informed the Police have been asking about the $25k.

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

    philu What slightlyrighty said with bells on

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. big bruv (14,121 comments) says:

    jocko (54) +0 Says:

    July 30th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
    Dave Strings 10.03am –
    I’m informed the Police have been asking about the $25k.

    Well that is the end of the matter then, we know what the outcome of this will be………altogether now!…While there is a prima facie case it is not in the public interest to take this any further..blah blah blah

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Brian (Shadowfoot) (80 comments) says:

    Is there a Rosetta Stone or a Google Translate option for deciphering Philu’s writings?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Inventory2 (10,404 comments) says:

    Brian – try http://www.understanding…therantings…ofastoned…greenie.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Hagues (703 comments) says:

    SSB “How can Dear Leader be happy with this minister, for fucks sake they are as bad as each other.”

    Question asked, questioned answered.

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

    And another thing……

    Jones agrees to donate to NZ first at the behest of Winston……

    Jones donates $25K to the Spencer Trust……..

    Winston “Knows Nothing” about Spencer Trust…….

    As he “Knows Nothing”, Winston cannot be aware that promised donation has been made……

    Why does Winston not ask Jones where his promised donation is?

    Is it just me or is Winston Peters the Sgt Schultz of NZ politics?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. freethinker (694 comments) says:

    Presumably Winston received statements from his Barrister, so did he not have a duty to question the reduction in the balance and ask if this was declareable as a pecuniary beneift requiring declaration if greater than the amount Winston paid out of his personal funds? If the Barrister did not send a statement then does he bear responsibility for allowing his client to break the law? What is the explanation for a Barrister operating a trust account when Barristers do not have client funds so have no need rro a trust account which is presumably why the Law Society does not audit Barristers
    accounts???????????????? More questions than answers – as is usual with Winston!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Inventory2 (10,404 comments) says:

    Ah well, we’ll just wait and see what the SFO says…

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

    IV2 In its usual (cough) effeicent manner the SFO will issue the standard one liner. “We investigated and found nothing wrong”

    Translation H2 told us that H1 had told her to tell us to say this.

    And remember The SFO is about to be rolled into the Police Force under the command of good ole Howie the PMs best Commissioner.

    Now if you wanted to keep your job wouldnt you just fold and issue the one liner,

    Heh Why rock the boat when you see the corrupt behaviour going on all around you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. dave strings (608 comments) says:

    Oh fill you

    do the words “He may well have been” confuse you? Specifically, the word “MAY” does not confirm that he was (basic English, but of course, you were absent from school by reason of being stoned that decade weren’t you :-) ).

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