Peters has breached the Register Rules
August 19th, 2008 at 9:54 am by David FarrarI won’t be able to cover this in more detail until this afternoon, but from the media reports to date of the Privileges Committee, it is obvious that Peters has broken the rules of the Register,just not in the way thought.
It was revealed that Brian Henry personally (according to Henry) paid the $40,000 damages/costs to Bob Clarkson. Now one can argue about whether or not the work Henry does for Peters is or is not a debt whether invoiced or not, but there can be no argument that a court judgement directing Winston Peters to pay $40,000 to Bob Clarkson is a debt from Peters to Clarkson. It was not an order for Brian Henry to pay Bob Clarkson or Winston’s solictors to pay Bob Clarkson. It was an order for Peters.
And Brian Henry says he paid that debt on behalf of Winston Peters. Now regardless of whether or not he did so using the money from Owen Glenn (which I will come back to), Brian Henry should have been declared as someone who discharged a debt on behalf of Peters. His 2005 or 2006 returns were incorrect as Henry was not listed as having paid the $40,000 debt.
Now Peters may claim he did not know Henry paid it. Well even if that is true, the issue is should he have known? Surely a man who was Treasurer would know whether or not he made out a $40,000 cheque to settle the costs – a debt which was in his name. You can’t just say I never realised someone else paid my $40,000 debt.
Section 19(1) states:
It is the responsibility of each member to ensure that he or she fulfils the obligations imposed on the member by this Appendix.
There is a lot more analysis to be done of the testimony, including whether Owen Glenn should have been listed also, but there seems little doubt Brian Henry should have been, and Peters breached the rules of the Register in not doing so.
Related posts:
- More on Peters and Henry
- Media on Henry and Peters
- On a minor note
- What you have to believe in to believe Peters did not know
August 19th, 2008 at 10:01 am
I think that will be considered obscure – good luck!
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 10:06 am
there can be no argument that a court judgement directing Winston Peters to pay $40,000 to Bob Clarkson is a debt from Peters to Clarkson. It was not an order for Brian Henry to pay Bob Clarkson or Winston’s solictors to pay Bob Clarkson. It was an order for Peters.
I thought this also, DPF – so glad that you had similar thoughts. I’m almost certain he has breached some laws, its just a matter of what.
Nice work.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Lets face it, he is a crook.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 10:10 am
The court judgement is a matter of public record. It would have specifically directed Peters to make a Payment to Clarkson. This is a publicly notified debt. This debt was paid, and has been publicly admitted as having been paid, by a third party.
I would know if I had a $40,000 Debt, especially if it was outlined in a court judgement. I certainly would not leave this debt unattended in the hope that someone would pay it on my behalf and then conveniently not tell me that it had been paid so that I would not have to declare either in the Register as required.
Winston cannot plead ignorance in regard to these matters. Logic dictates that he can’t have it both ways. The public records, in this case the court judgement and the register of pecuniary interests should correlate and they do not. Ipso Facto, clear breach, and not the initial one that precipitated the whole process at that!
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Unfortunately it isn’t the smoking gun we need. Sure, it shows that Winston was sloppy with paperwork, but any political observer knows that Winston has always been lax with the details. It hasn’t hurt him before, and it won’t hurt him now. Your lawyer got a donation to pay your debt, and you were slack in declaring it, is nowhere near what we need to put the stake in his heart – 5% of NZers will forgive slackness.
We still need the evidence that he accepted donations from large financial backers (Owen Glenn, Bob Jones) and that money didn’t find its way to the proper place. And that as a general pattern of affairs, that money was siphoned into mysterious trusts that did not ever turn up on any election expenses returns. And, finally, that some of that money from large financial backers came from the very industries that Winston had ministerial responsibility for, were deliberately obscured, and that later favourable decisions were given on behalf of those donors. That is the smoking gun. Most of the paper trail appears to be there. We need either a very good investigative journalist, or an agency with real power such as the SFO, to follow the trail and fill in the gaps.
Winston has pissed enough people off over the years that there will be plenty of folks prepared to come forward with evidence once it starts to become clear what the shape of the deeds were. In some respects a journalist would be a better option, because ongoing media about it will encourage people to keep coming forward with more information. If it goes off to the SFO there is a risk that things will go quiet, and people won’t come forward with evidence. Conversely, the SFO can compel people to talk to them, and can actively go out and talk to the people who should know things. People who would say “no comment” to a journalist on principle, might feel a bit different about lying to the SFO.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. However it seems, ignorance of ones own affairs including a costs order made against oneself and the fact it disappears without explaination is!
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 10:27 am
PaulL – I agree regarding the smokeless gun. Nice to have Winnie caught out, but it’s only a bit of mud and will quickly be washed off and forgotten by his blind voter lemmings
I understood the SFO was to be wound up? What is the agenda/timeframe there? I could imagine that process begin accelerated by Auntie Helen if any activity by the SFO threatened to cast a shadow on her empire.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 10:30 am
There is nothing wrong with someone else paying a debt for you, even a court debt. Someone could have donated $40,000 to him which he could have paid the debt with (which I presume you would consider ok), or just paid it on his behalf as happened here – this has the same result.
The only problem is that he hasn’t declared it. So I think you do have a case here, but I wouldn’t make too much of the “someone else paid it” point, that is irrelevant in my mind. It is the lack of a declaration that is important.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Mr Dennis – the declaration is an issue, but a wider issue is who gave the secret donation, and why? If there is evidence that whomever gave the donation expected something in return, then it becomes a word starting with b.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Personally I think I have heard more plausible excuses from eight year olds explaining why they haven’t done their homework.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 10:43 am
There can be no doubt that this is a personal debt for Peters. As I blogged at the time, the Tauranga petition was a legal action between Winston Raymond Peters (Petitioner) and Robert Moncrieff Clarkson (Respondent). The award of costs of $40k was against Peters personally, not against NZ First or any other legal entity. It would seem that Henry has dumped Peters into the cack, and from a great height!
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 10:45 am
It was quite obvious all along that this was the smoking gun the collapsed Peters’ sophistry about Henry organising money for legal expences without his knowledge. Peters had a $40,000 debt ordered by the Court to Bob Clarkson. How did Peters settle the $40,000. If it came as a gift from someone then Peters should have declared it. If it was his own money then OK. But if Peters received a gift then Peters needed to declare it and he should have known that and so should have Henry. I get very sick of having people like Henry and Peters who claim all this competence but when it comes to managing their own affairs they want special treatment to be incompetent and ignorant.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 10:49 am
PaulL, I agree with the second paragraph of your first post – however, where not having heard much other than reading these comments on what happened figure it unlikely that Winston will not survive.
Saying that though, the comments on the SFO are the/a remaining factor.
I say this because those (Hide & Copeland as I remember) who brought the charges to Margaret Wilson’s attention (I doubt anyway) would not have ignored any fact. They would have chosen to pursue the Owen Glenn, Debacle, because it was the more likely prosecutable affair.
Personally I thought the Sir Bob issue was the more likely to fly because Winston had actively sought to solicit (hic) the funds. As pointed out if the SFO pick it up, time becomes a factor and this could hurt Winston in the elections to the degree that no one can place confidence in a man who offers a defence of “I slipped up because I am slippery me”, when the charges are the same that could see a President of the USA impeached. If the SFO don’t investigate as stated under the ignorance of law argument then he has a gail in his sails going into the election – no matter what anyone thinks.
This is what Winston does. This is how he gets into parlaiment every time. He is playing his cards and he is playing them very carefully. This time around he picked a hurricane to sail because given the ocean that was all that was on offer.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 10:51 am
the $40k is the key but how come Henrys bills were so large? some legal eagles think that Henrys charges ( paid by Glenn ) were a little excessive for the work he did.
meanwhile my prediction is things will get hot next week… I thought I knew a fair bit about what Winnie had done but I have been floored by some of the stuff I have heard in the last few days…
and has anyone found meurant yet?
roarprawn.blogspot.com
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 10:52 am
So who DOES Brian Henry invoice (as, presumably he would need to account for the money paid to him for tax purposes)? There was some talk of a legal trust fund. It would be interesting to know more about that entity – who the trustees are, who the beneficiaries are and on what basis the money was paid to Brian Henry. Trustees owe fiduciary duties, and must account for all monies received and paid. They can’t simply pay out money unless to do so would benefit the beneficiaries of the trust. The only people who would benefit from such a transaction are Winston or NZ First (assuming it indemnified him for his legal costs). Which then brings us back to disclosure issues…
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 10:52 am
It would only be a bribe if he knew who gave the money to pay the debt and that person would obviously have to have asked for something. Either before, or after the debt was paid. If the money was paid by any of the suspected sources, they’ve screwed winnie good and proper given the amount of time that has passed, and they’ve implicated themselves too. If they haven’t already, it may be time to take a holiday and erase NZ from the “must visit” list in their diary. Especially now Helen’s government is toast. Unless winnie reported the fact someone had attempted to bribe him, at the time the source made it clear they had supplied the money, he’s complicit in the deal. Screwed. And no amount of lawyer talk will get him out of that. As the old lesson goes: Watch whose money you pick up.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 10:53 am
It would be a travesty if the only thing the privileges committee can pin on Peters is that his lawyer and friend paid a damages/costs bill and he didn’t declare it. There’s so much more going on there that they need to expose – but I am still skeptical that the Nats on the Committee will push hard enough on this.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Just a question, and if there are any Legal experts here I would appreciate their input, But if the court orders a plaintiff in the form of a person, and not an entity, to pay costs, and that person does not do so, instead relying on “unknown parties” to cover these costs with the implication that these parties are not to inform the plaintiff that:
a. Action is being taken to cover these costs by a third party who is not the plaintiff?,
b. These costs have been covered, (so that the plaintiff does not end up paying costs twice as an unintended consequence?)
are these actions tantamount to contempt of court?
If a fine is imposed, can I get a mate to pay it? If I am imprisoned, can I get someone else to do my time on my behalf? I am aware that a civil case has a different set of rules but it is impossible to not know that a court ordered personal debt has been discharged by a third party, otherwise you would either end up paying this bill twice, or in your own mind be deliberately not complying with a court order.
More had to be done than Winston simply saying to his Lawyer “get this paid” The money had to come from somewhere, and that had to be declared.
The other issue is where did the money come from, and if it was solicited in the form of donations, where did the doners think that money was going and to what end?
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 11:15 am
I understood his actions have to be tested against the Cabinet Rules which are much more stringent than MPs’ rules.
Vote:I seem to remember that you have to declare any debt over a certain amount. No ifs or buts.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:18 am
The costs line is an interesting angle.
I wonder whether the court charges e.g filing fees etc and other disbursements (separate to a lawyers fees) are costs for counsel or the client in Mr Peters world of the legally extraordinary.
I wonder who paid the $9260 in costs awarded to TVNZ and David Carter on 28 March 2008. See WINSTON RAYMOND PETERS V TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LTD AND ORS HC AK CIV 2004 404 3311 28 March 2008
Getting back to the ‘gift’ at issue, a good question the committee could ask Glenn in writing or via video link would be who or what did he make the cheque out to: Henry, NZ First, Spencer Trust or Peters, and to provide a copy of the stubb for evidential purposes.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 11:18 am
The sad and pathetic charade that was played out in the Parliament last night just served to confirm how badly this country is governed.
The so called highest Court in the land whose inhabitants have th task of making laws for the citizens showed it is not worthy of even conducting the proverbial booze up in the brewery.
Every thinking citizen should reflect that that if any of them had acted in the manner of the Member Peters whilst in a High Court would have been quickly and directly chraged with contempt and taken to the cells until they apologised to the Court for their misbehaviour.
That the so called highest Court in the land makes one set of rules for the citizens and another quite different set of rules for itself shows the contempt it holds for the citizens.
The Parliament is an irelevancy and the time has come to remove its inhabitants by force if necessary and replace them with citizens who have the will the capacity and the capability of earning the citizens respect.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 11:20 am
I can just hear the talk in the old age home: “Politics is about getting someone else to pay. The nice Mr Peters just got a bit confused, that is all…”
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Does not the Cabinet Office Manual require declaration not only of cash gifts but gifts of goods or services? Surely if I gave a cabinet minister a Porsche (for example) it would have to be declared. So why hasn’t Mr Peters declared the gift of $100,000+ worth of services from Mr Henry?
Vote:Mr Peters says Mr Henry has never sent him a bill. But he admits that he knew he was receiving the gift – that was the nature of their “blood brothers” deal.
Mr Peters can claim that he did not know who was providing the gifts, Mr Henry or anonymous donors such as Mr Glenn. He can also claim (since he had arranged never to see the accounting) not to have known the total value. But he knew these gifts existed and (especially being a lawyer himself) must have known they were of substantial value.
In fact the bizarre shell game they have evolved to avoid a declaration makes the moral position worse. A straight out gift, once given, cannot be retracted. But a contingent gift like Mr Henry’s is dependent on the giver choosing not to send in a bill. This puts the recipient in a far deeper moral hazard because the “gift” is then potentially dependant on the recipient’s future behaviour. It is like a suspended sentence that puts the recipient in hock – indefinitely – to the giver.
At the very least, Mr Peters and Mr Henry seem to have concocted a scheme designed for the purpose of avoiding the declaration rules. Is this not the same as the companies in the wine box scandal? They were accused of have concocted a scheme designed for the purpose of avoiding the taxation rules – and were vigorously condemned by Mr Peters for doing so.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:26 am
There is such a lovely symmetry about the idea of Peters being skewered by the SFO for “siphoning money into mysterious trusts”.
The most irritating thing about NZ politics is that the Hitler principle of “if you’re going to tell a lie, tell a big one” always seems to work. The blustering rogues continually get off scot-free.
Could this be the year that they get their comeuppance?
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 11:56 am
It makes me damn sick!!!
The possibility that we may have to suffer this bloody blood-sucking parasite for another 3 years fills me with absolute disgust!!
Even my dear old Winston loving mother has lost faith in him and that is saying something
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 11:57 am
John Ansell You will have the Godwins Law wankers after you The very same wankers who lack the wit to see the traversty of bad governance that this case has exposed. NZ is no better than Fiji when it comes to govenrance as my colleagues in Australia continue to remind me.
I no longer try and defend the shambles that passes for governance They say that countries get the government and govenrnace they deserve
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
As I’ve noted on Keeping Stock this morning, Peters was aware that:
* costs of $40K had been awarded against him personally in respect of the High Court action Peters v Clarkson
* Clarkson advised the House by way of point of order on 5 April 2006 that the costs had been paid
Essentially, it is a matter of public record that a debt was established againsy Winston Peters, namely costs imposed by the High Court, and Hansard records that the payment was made.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
I2
Baseless allegations – not in the public interest to prosecute – move on!
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Winston is on record saying he thought he had paid it. I thought I read in the NZ Herald that he acted surprised when Hentry said he paid the $ 40,000. So let’s wait and see. This is not a man that will go quietly in the night, to the delight of many NZers I think
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
I’m just waiting for someone to do a “Leave Winston alone!” rant on youtube now as that guy did for poor Britney…
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Good point about Fiji – (gd : August 19th, 2008 at 11:57 am)
I was very gobsmacked to here Helen yesterday on breakfast pontificating about Bainimarama.
She had the temerity to say - “that its hard to know how to deal with these people because last year, the Commodore came from Fiji and he made commitments to Pacific Island Leaders sitting at a retreat and statements he’s made in Suva in recent weeks he’s basically said he never meant it at the time and how do you deal with someone like this”
how about substituting Fiji and the Commodore with NZF, public and Winston Peters!!
Deary me Helen !!! How do you deal with these people-YOU SACK THEM !!!
If you don’t its then One law for Fiji and One Law for Winnie (because we need him)
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Hes not the messiah, hes a very naughty boy!
Bad Winston, don’t do it again. Laws too complex for us simple politicians, we’ll change it to make what he did legal.
Our voting options are really being narrowed down to witch method we have of expressing our displeasure.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
What penalties is Peters subject to? I hope that they throw the book at him, and I don’t mean a book of wet bus tickets.
http://www.kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Try posting something on his website winstonpeters.com
I mentioned the word ‘winebox’ and been stuck in moderation for about 4 days. ha ha ha ha. so much for free speech or anything else that the clown doesn’t like.
Note also how the website is called winstonpeters.com and all to do with NZF follows after. Very telling.
The sooner he falls the happier I will be. Sure he represent a constituency but he is a cheat and a liar and a clown. There are better people around to represent those people.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Come on vto I have house plants that could do a better job.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Heh – you lot must be loving this!!
(vto – freedom of speech is a legal right in this country. But Winnie has no obligation to stick up any of your comments on HIS blog. Farrar makes a very good statement of this concept on his Posting Policy page.)
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
The revelation that Peter’s attorney has paid the $40K and that this has not been declared may well give Helen Clark an out now that the last confidence vote has been held in Parliament.
She could sack him for this, and de-fuse all allegations regarding Owen Glenn as this will not be the issue for which he has been booted.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
“She could sack him for this, and de-fuse all allegations regarding Owen Glenn as this will not be the issue for which he has been booted.”
I don’t think she can ‘sack’ him. She’s not his boss. Under MMP, if she refuses to deal with WInston, won;t it risk her having to accept tht Labour is demoted to no more than a ‘caretaker government’ until the next election at least?
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Presumably Mr Henry decalred and paid the gift duty – IRD please note to check. Are there any rules for when a fee is charged – commercially a charge is usually made when the job is completed or at certain stages of completion – perhaps whoever regulates barristers should audit Henry to see if charging the job out only when it is paid is Henry’s normal modus operandi or just specifici to Winston. The IRD may also want to consider the Gst aspect – Gst normally applies to the period of supply not when the bill is raised so Henry may have need an IRD audit to satisfy itself that he has acted in accordance with the law. Also does a Barrister have a duty of care to a client to advise them if the discharge of a personal liability requires them to make a register declaration and further does a PM have a duty when made aware of gift issues to seek confirmation from the Minister that they have complied with cabinet manual requirements, perhaps Rodney should ask a pertinent question in the house next week – a supplementary question may be the way to go to ensure the prime liar is not forwarned although I suspect Beehive Gnomes read every post on this website.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Has anyone checked Hansard to see how many times Winston has stated how much he has paid in legal bills.
I seem to recall him stating on many occasions how much these actions cost him personally. It would be nice to find reference to this, especially if he has misled the house. Was he lying then or is he lying now ?
If he has paid and Henry has never billed him, was he making a gift and did he pay the gift duty?
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
How has Mr Henry accounted for the GST. Was it from a GST registered entity, if so who/what. Is the Spencer Trust registered for GST?
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
I’d be interested at some stage in checking the Hansard for the day I would swear that I heard him say “to err is human to forget is divine.”
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Hansard search is returning an error page just now.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
“An error page”, I hope I have started something.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
getstaffed – I think it’s overloaded from people like you and I looking for incriminating evidence. It took me over an hour (of an and off searches) to get the quote from Clarkson
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/08/just-answer-questions-winston.html
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
If someone pays a debt for me (thats in my name) that’s higher than $27k… does that amount to a gift that incurs duty? Does this need to be declared to IRD as well?
http://www.ird.govt.nz/duties-levies/gift-duty/
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
FletcherB
The answer to that is simple: Not if you are above the law and/or part of the Labour-led govt. If you are caught out, deny, delay, denigrate and if all else fails – retrospectively validate and pass new laws under urgency.
Easy as when you are allowed to write, intrepret and judge your own indiscretions under the law.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Portia asks:
Precisely, Portia. Brian Henry isn’t the kind of man to just idly dispense with $40k. Perhaps there was a payment of this or a larger amount from another source which facilitated this generosity? It may even have been, indirectly, the long-suffering taxpayer. The Privileges Committee can, theoretically, demand to know but doesn’t have the resources to test the evidence they’re given. Only the SFO can properly investigate, and they must.
If a half-assed sham like the Privileges Committee can turn up this nugget in it’s first evening, think what a proper investigation, with access to the accounts of Brian Henry and Dennis Gates (Winston’s solicitor) could do.
And, as bustedblonde says, has anybody found Ross Meurant? Again, the SFO can look under rocks the Privileges Committee doesn’t have the resources (or will) to lift.
Follow the money… that simple maxim has brought down some of history’s biggest crooks. I’d urge everyone to drop a line to the SFO reminding them that you’re their employers and you’d quite like to know what your other employees have been doing with your taxes.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Is there a western democracy of our type in which it is constitutionally acceptable for a member of the public to render professional services to an MP (or Minister of the Crown) for his/her personal benefit without (a) payment at market rates, and (b) the MP (or Minister of the Crown) maintaining a transparent, documented record of transactions to verify that appropriate two-way consideration has passed and that all tax and other obligations have been met?
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
PaulL (1971) +17 Says:
August 19th, 2008 at 10:19 am
“Unfortunately it isn’t the smoking gun we need. Sure, it shows that Winston was sloppy with paperwork, but any political observer knows that Winston has always been lax with the details. It hasn’t hurt him before, and it won’t hurt him now……”
Yes, it is sad to see the sort of letter to the editor that was in a recent “Listener”, from an elderly lady saying how much she still trusted her dear Winston, and wouldn’t dream of voting for anyone else. I don’t know just what sort of “smoking gun” would actually be required to make those people change their mind about Winston. Same goes for Helen Clark, heck, if what she has done already is still O.K with around 30% of Kiwis, I sure don’t feel comfortable about being surrounded in society by that many people whose judgement is THAT warped…….
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
The good news Phil is that Winston’s constituency shrinks with every funeral. “New” retirees are far less likely to be attracted to NZ First than those who are old enough to remember WWII, the Cold War, the Yellow Peril, and the threat posed by all the Reds Under the Bed!
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Interesting – new retirees don’t think they are old. They don’t get old until well into their eighties. One of my great aunties was at my grandmothers recent funeral. She had just had two new knees put in, and was jumping around like a jack in the box. She was off to play golf after the funeral – she definitely wasn’t sitting around in some old folks home waiting to die, and complaining about how the world was better in the old days. Here’s hoping that there are plenty more like her out there – I can’t imagine her falling for Winston’s line.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
I haven’t got used to being an old age pensioner either.
However, I can with absolute confidence declare that my first pension payment did not turn me into a member of Grey Power or NZ First.
Some people do have a remarkable ability to manage cognitive dissonance. You may remember the story about Stalin – who remains immune to the strictures of Godwin’s Law.
Two Russians were chatting in the street about some shocking revelations of the Gulag, or secret executions or similar, and one said “This is terrible Do you think we should tell Uncle Joe about it?”
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
There’s another aphorism re Stalin that comes to mind too Owen… the one about a single death being a tragedy, while genocide was a statistic.
I have a feeling some of the public feel this way about the revelations we’re discussing here. Talk of trust funds and hundreds of thousands of dollars seem so unreal to them as to be fantastic. Whereas they could identify with, and feel resentful of, a man who spent $58 on undies. They could immediately compare that to a) the frayed elastic holding up their own pair of greying Jockeys and b) what they’d have to do to get their hands on $58 discretionary spending (not eat for a week, or at least share dinner with Tiddles).
What Winston’s opponents aren’t doing enough of is translating all this stuff into bite sized chunks that those people can understand.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
All this connivance proves is that Winston Peters is a liar. And not a very imaginative one either. Brian Henry should be struck off for taking part in this ridiculous charade. It is all so unbelievable and I cannot accept these patent untruths. God forbid, they’ve had months to put together a plausible story, and is this the best they can do?
Of course it speaks volumes about our acceptance of lies from those in public office. Another fine example of ‘she’ll be right’. This part of kiwi culture really annoys me, it manifests itself by our lazy attitude towards standards, or lack of them, in public life.
Except of course boobs on bikes. Now that’ll really get us going. Pathetic.
PS Winston, you still owe us $158,000.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
heathcote: Its my experience in dealing with people as arrogant, belligerent, egotistical and, as obnoxious as these two, is that they have convinced themselves that they are right and we are wrong. Worse, they truely believe it.
Vote: