The pundits have their say
September 11th, 2008 at 7:00 pm by David FarrarAs amazingly it looks like Helen may not sack Peters at all now, three journalists have their say. First Audrey Young compares the testimonies:
There is one piece of evidence that could possibly salvage Peters and Henry and that is a record of a phone call, if one existed, from Henry to Glenn in the last three months of 2005.
It would not be hard for Henry to authorise his phone company to release that to the committee in order to save his “blood brother” and himself.
Any half decent lawyer would have produced this weeks ago. Actual evidence, as oppossed to conspiracy theories, are what is needed. If such evidence is produced, I suggest the Privileges Committee should ask the phone company in question to authenticate the evidence.
Doubtless there are some holes in the testimony of both Glenn and Peters but on the whole, you could drive a Tonka toy through Glenn’s and a Mack through Peters’.
Nicely put.
Peters suggested that just because some people at a lunch at the Karaka sales did not hear Peters thank Glenn for his donation, then he couldn’t have thanked him.
Or that because Peters has good manners (well, especially where wealthy folk are concerned) if he had known about the donation he would have thanked Glenn for it.
Yep, that was his serious argument. That he would have thanked Owen earlier than Karaka if he knew of the donation. This is why I compared it to a five year old.
Once Clark reads the transcript of the hearing, she will see that Peters does not really have a defence.
Or just read the NZPA story on how he gave three different explanations during the one session.
The difference between his testimony before the committee and that of Owen Glenn was stark. Glenn relied on facts – emails, phone logs, sworn statements from witnesses. He went through his evidence carefully and methodically. He answered questions directly, without embellishment. There was no exaggeration. He stuck to his story. He was a very credible witness.
Peters, on the other hand, led the committee a merry dance. He disputed virtually every point of Glenn’s evidence, but with nothing besides his own self-described faulty memory to back up his evidence. There were no phone logs, no emails, and only a statement from his own lawyer in his defence – and even that appeared to contradict Peters’ evidence to the committee.
On television later that night, Peters looked half-way believable in the short clips that were shown. But to sit there and watch him desperately try to explain why his lawyer Brian Henry had emailed Glenn with his bank account details just minutes after Peters had finished speaking to the billionaire was to witness a drowning man gasping for air.
He floundered, he splashed, he spluttered. But in the end Peters simply couldn’t find any credible explanation for Glenn’s hard evidence. The best he could come up with was that he might have told Henry to email Glenn, at Glenn’s request, but he had no idea why or what for and didn’t think it proper to ask.
Frankly, if the committee members believe that then they also believe in the tooth fairy.
Yet Helen still clings on to Winston.
And Bill Ralston:
He admits having a phone conversation with Glenn but cannot recall if money was discussed. In fact he thinks they didn’t discuss money. What then did they talk about? He cannot recall.
Within minutes of that phone call Brian Henry, on the advice of his “client”, emailed Glenn with bank account details for the money to be paid. Peters has no idea whom the “client” might be that Henry refers to and no idea why Henry might be sending bank account details to Glenn.
This is just nuts. Compared with the clear concise testimony given by Glenn to the committee, backed by physical evidence, Winston Peters’ statements lack any credibility and he produced no physical evidence to rebut Glenn.
Nuts indeed.
It makes Richard Nixon look like the model of integrity and truth.
Related posts:
- More details likely from Glenn
- The short version
- The myth that the Privileges Committee will decide who is telling the truth
- Pathetic
September 11th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Its not just the Newspapers who are saying that Helen wont sack Winston
Vote:September 11th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
This whole thing has become disgusting.
As Owen Glenn said, “I wouldn’t want to be in the trenches with these people – they’d push you out first.”
and ” These are people that I really don’t want to be asociated with.” i.e. Peters, Clarke, Williams – and by implication and word, the entire Labour Party.
And Helen’s decision to not (yet) sack Peters, does this make her a *Peterphile* ….
Vote:September 11th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
This being a center-right blog (stop laughing Philu, we know what you think of us!), there has been much praise heaped on Rodney Hide during this issue. But we should also note with appreciation the seemingly unbiased performance of Russell Norman on the committee to date.
His even handed approach would seem to me to be a demonstration of a man untainted by the system, having not been in parliament for very long. As a person who will have to be consulted with post November, I would think he is learning a bit about his potential co-alition partners in recent days!
Vote:September 11th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
bit of a shame John Campbell doesnt seem to remember the question he asked Peters in February
Interview, Winston Peters, by John Campbell Feb 2008
John Campbell asked Winston Peters “So no Money from Owen Glenn?”
Peters “now look – No is No, I Haven’t got the sign here but no is no”.
Campbell: “So there’s no semantics here Mr Peters. The money didn’t come through some other… through a trust fund or from Mr Glenn’s accountant…?
Peters; “I’ll say it to you, say it to you very slowly one more time, no means, not yes, not anything else but no. Have you got that Mr Campbell?, or do I have to send you back to oxford university here”
http://www.3news.co.nz/Video/CampbellLive/tabid/367/articleID/64461/cat/84/Default.aspx#video
Vote:September 11th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Clark hasn’t shown much understanding of ethical behaviour herself (the art fraud, not supporting the police who sped whiel driving her, the pledge cars…) so maybe she simply doesn’t udnerstand what Peters has done is wrong.
Vote:September 11th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
“..As amazingly it looks like Helen may not sack Peters at all now..”
sheesh..dpf..i’ve beentrying to tell you this for..oh..ages..eh..?
and all those pundits were the ones saying there was no way peters would make it to afternoon tea..eh..?
heh-heh..!
do the sad buggers ever stand up and go..sorry..!..got that wrong..eh..?..’
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 11th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
When is the next poll due?
Vote:September 11th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
That’s right, Homepaddock.
Typical of a liberal lefty bunch – the denial of objective truth; if it *seems-okay-to-me-it-must be true* and therfore not being able to see through the bullshit.
Sorry day for our wondrously endowed country.
Vote:September 11th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Clark is never going to sack Winston Peters because she knows that, if she does sack him, then Winston Peters will go public with all the dirt he has on her.
Clark and her office are already being investigated at some very high levels for out right dishonesty. Once the details of these investigations are made public then hopefully the penny will drop for those that believe she is fundamentally an honest person. She is not.
Clark and her senior officials are up to their eyeballs in their own crap – and they know it. I think they’ll actually be relieved when they lose the next election because they know they wouldn’t be able to survive another year trying to keep a lid on everything. Clark has also proven to everyone that she will turn on her biggest supporters at the drop of a hat – so the loyalty that Helen Clark once commanded from her peers is becoming weaker as they start to realise that, one day, it could be them being smeared by Clark. She has no loyalty to anyone but herself. Labour supporters – wake up and smell the coffee!
Vote:September 11th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Speaking of Nixon…. where’s Woodward & Bernstein when we need them? “All the Labour Party’s men”?
Vote:September 11th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Brian Henry is to provide the privileges committee with the name of the “client”. Simple, no? Then the “client” will be called to give evidence also. Should be entertaining.
Vote:September 11th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Speaking of Nixon? I am NOT a crook!
Vote:Oh, you mean Richard Milhous Nixon. Well, he may have been crooked, but no more than any of the others – JFK, Johnson and Clinton… he was just unfortunate in getting caught.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Another reason I think Peters is lying…
He hasn’t produced his monthly phone bills.
And, he must have access to old phone bills because:
1. They are a business expense for tax purposes, and we all know the IRD requires records to be stored for 7 years.
2. He has given no other explanation for not producing his phone bill.
3. If the phone bills were not incriminating they would have been produced a long time ago.
My fear: Winnie gets off when it is clear he is guilty. Election , and winnie gets his 5% and forms government with clark.
And, I give that a 50/50 chance.
Vote:September 11th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
happy birthday, david!
Vote:September 11th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
SR – the polls are coming out this weekend. What i found interesting was Guyon Espiner on TV1 news tonight. It was like he had a big secret: he started talking about the effect of the Peters affair on Labour, and you got the impression he was dying to let something out, but then said the poll would be released on Sunday. I may be wrong, but i can’t recall him announcing beforehand the day that they would release the poll before. We wait with bated breath (well actually, i wait with a wad of cash committed on ipredict, but that’s another story
).
Vote:September 11th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Petal: “Brian Henry is to provide the privileges committee with the name of the “client”. Simple, no? Then the “client” will be called to give evidence also. Should be entertaining.”
Hasn’t Henry refused to disclose the client’s name because its “subject to legal privelege”?
Just imagine it: at the very same moment that Winston was on the phone to Owen Glenn himself (talking about – well, oh, um – pretty much anything except money), someone else (by sheer coincidence, also Brian Henry’s “client”) just happened to ALSO be on the phone to Owen Glenn (talking in his other ear, I guess) asking for a donation! It is, as Winston would say,”quite obviously the only logical explanation!”
Henry’s mystery client #2 was previously willing to put in all that effort cold-calling billionaires around the planet to raise funds to help save Winston’s sorry political ass. But now, at Winston’s hour of greatest need, s/he is callously refusing to disclose their identity – which would help save Winston’s sorry political ass. And Brian Henry, Winston’s blood brother, must also keep this person’s identity as secret, despite all the pain this must cause him, because of his impeccable professional ethics.
Its a tragedy. Imagine having political “friends” like that – who can turn and betray you at the drop of a hat. Such gutter-level self-serving treachery is unheard of in NZ politics, innit Helen..? Trevor..? Mike…?
Vote:September 11th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
PhilU @7:37 “..sheesh..dpf..i’ve beentrying to tell you this for..oh..ages..eh..?”
Vote:With the arrival of iPredict.co.nz, no such “I-could-have-told-you-so”s should be acceptable unless they’re accompanied by a record of the profits you made on iPredict putting your money where your mouth is!
(Personally, I’m down 5% this week and glad I didn’t buy into the “Winston’s gone by lunchtime” bubble!)
September 11th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Philu.
The reason many of us, and many in the media predicted that Peters would be gone by lunchtime, is that we were relying on the last vestiges of either honesty, integrity, intelligence or political nous on the part of the PM that the time to hang on to Peters had well and truly passed.
I am happy to say she has disappointed us all!
Vote:September 11th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Peters has got dirt on HC. If he goes, she goes. Simple as that. There is no way Peters will be gone before the election. HC will be defending him all the way. The onus will be on the NZ public to see through their lying and corrupt behaviour. However, as we saw in 2005, the NZ public can be easily bought so dont hold your breath. Dollars will always win over principles.
Vote:September 11th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Henry already unambiguously identifies the “client” as Peters by referring to the client as being the one on the phone to Glenn at 1:30. There was only one person on the phone to Glenn at that time, and that was Peters. Therefore Henry has identified the client as Peters.
So for Henry to now perpetrate a charade that it could be someone else just makes him liable for perjury charges which I sincerely hope someone files against him.
As for Helen sacking him… she hasn’t even set an election date yet. Are we even going to have an election? Or has she been studying Mugabe a bit more than we think…
Vote:September 12th, 2008 at 2:10 am
So if Clark keeps Peters till dissolution date Labour is linked to heavily discredited NZF in the public mind and Labour loses the election even more heavily.Perhaps dropping 3%
Vote:On the other hand if she gets rid of Peters before dissolution he hisses and blows and NZFgets 2.5-3% which allows National to get a bonus 1-1.5% of the unallocated vote
Simple electoral maths plumps for her taking the second option and adopting the same public stance re Winston.
as John Key to minimise public difference and see the end ofWinston et al
My pick s that she sacks him on Tuesday night and announces election date of November 8th all in one go Always best to have something else to capture the headlines
September 12th, 2008 at 2:30 am
Billboard
You cannot legally smack a naughty child but you can smack Labour by using your vote for a change
Ps Im not insomniac just in London
Vote:September 12th, 2008 at 4:21 am
This whole thing is just a giant shit show now, but it’s curiously fascinating in the way it exposes the wierd, shady, convoluted dealings of the Labour Party.
Peters is a corrupt liar- but we’ve known that for years. The man’s got serious issues. This election will remove him from the political landscape forever, and I don’t think anyone will miss him. It’s the Owen Glenn/Labour relationship that is truly mind boggling.
I’ve noticed that a few commenters here have started to admire Glenn due to his role in stirring up the stinky mess that is the Labour/NZ1 coalition. Big Mistake. Glenn is a fucking idiot. Let’s not forget that this moron donated to Labour in 2005, and has propped them up since. He’s also lied about his motives for doing so. Now only recently he’s cliaming to be all heartbroken by the betrayal…. but shit, he cuddled up to those pricks in Labour in the first place, he was their bagman! They gave him a gong!
Up until recently, Owen Glenn was happy to be closely associated with scum like Mike Williams, Winston Peters, Trevor Mallard and Helen Clark. He would sit down and have dinner with Mike Williams. Mike fucking Williams. If Mike Williams ever showed his face at my place, I’d call the cops. The guy’s a crook. Anyone with half a brain knows this. Owen Glenn ought to have known it. Likewise if Trevor Mallard was within ten feet of me I’d probably throw up. Yet these were the people that Owen Glenn wanted to support. He must be mental.
The concrete proof that the bastard is batshit, however, only came with this last batch of interviews and revelations from Glenn. It looks like Glenn’s got enough documented proof of his dealings with Winston to sink the whole Labour/NZ1 ship, no problem. All he had to do was stick to the facts. The truth. He’s supposed to be a businessman with some good sense, if he wanted to clear his name, that’s the obvious thing to do. Don’t appear vindictive, or like you have an axe to grind. Stick to the facts. Easy.
But what does the sonofabitch do? After his priveleges committee appearance, he goes on Campbell live and starts making absurd claims like ‘Labour gives KFC in exchange for votes’. How the fuck would Owen Glenn know something like that? At best he’s relying on a rumour he heard. He wasn’t even in the fricken country, let alone south auckland. And strangely, nobody else saw this KFC stunt and mentioned it to the media? Bam. Instant hole in his credibility.
Then Glenn goes and says that Mike Williams showed up uninvited on his yacht, and that when he did, Owen told him to piss off. I almost gagged when I heard that. Geez, what a tough guy. It sounded like bullshit to me, and guess what, it was. Williams simply produces the email which clearly says he was invited. Bam. Another hole in Glenn’s credibility. He shows himself to be a liar, all so he could appear to be a tough guy on Campbell Live. What a moron. Labour must have breathed a huge sigh of relief when they saw the interview on TV.
From here on out it’s so much easier for Labour. The main witness against them has been shown to be a liar. He has a credibility problem. It only requires a couple of small lies to cast doubt on the whole case- and a little bit of doubt’s all Helen needs to maintain to justify keeping her government intact.
Glenn’s a basket case. I think Cullen and Co. are correct, the man’s crazy. And he’s a proven liar. Yeah, sure, probably less of a liar than Peters and definitely less than Clark, but his credibility is damaged. You can’t take his word on anything. If he’d been scrupulously honest in his behaviour up until now, you wouldn’t need an inquiry to establish Peter’s guilt, and he’d be gone. But by showing himself to be liar, the determination of truth has to now be left to a third party. Thanks for nothing Owen Glenn.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m enjoying watching the Labour/NZ1 meltdown muppet show. But I don’t see Owen Glenn as anything other than a vain, egotistical, lying pinko moron. The the bastard had the audacity to fuck with this country’s political processes when he chooses to live and pay tax somewhere else riles me. I’m glad we got rid of the prick, I just wish we could have rid ourselves of his influence as well. Glenn, Labour, and NZ1 deserve eachother.
National better win this fucking election. That’s all I’ve got to say about this, or we are in some deep, deep shit.
Vote:September 12th, 2008 at 4:21 am
Could be Fisiani, I reckon Winston has threatened to go nuclear on Hulun and Mikhael if she ditches him – by that I mean he MUST have some very radioactive dirt on her and the laybore party hierarchy. Keep your friends close and enemies closer…
Oh I DO hope it ends in tears though, for Hulun.
Vote:September 12th, 2008 at 4:23 am
jeez helmet – just enjoy the show.
how much worse can it get for laybore? glenns just a side show.
Vote:September 12th, 2008 at 4:28 am
adc is spot on.
According to the Telstra document tabled by Glenn it was made at 1:26pm NZ time and lasted for 6min 41sec. Thus it wouldn’t have ended before 1:32pm.
So the call was definitely in progress during the time mentioned in the Henry/Glenn email (‘Further to your discussion with my client at 1.30 nzt …’).
And Henry’s email went out only eight minutes afterwards (13:40:10 NZDT). Time enough – just – to put a note in the file before hopping on the keyboard to tap out the bank a/c details for Glenn.
The client was Peters.
Vote:September 12th, 2008 at 7:25 am
Helen will fire Winston, but not until tues/wed next week – as suggested by her. The facts are heavily against Winston – as the above examples show, he lied to the P.C. Anyone with basic addition skills can see that, and once the MSM wake up and publish the fact, it will be clear Helen is on a road to a beating by holding out. I’m not sure what she stands to gain from this, but Winston may actually have more to gain by resigning between now and next Wednesday citing kangaroo court, media conspiracy, big business etc etc. Perhaps this is what Helen hopes will happen. Once the P.C. come back with an assessment, she will be forced to act. And if they come back with the decision that shows all the coalition partners believing a lie (as above) and National not believing, then we will see just how corrupt they are. Once again it will be up to the media to publish the lies and corruption (not very much chance of that, but who knows). Once Winston steps down or Helen pushes him, she will name an election date. It wasn’t expected until at least mid September anyway (so relax, breathe, things may look dark, but there is no coup yet.)
There is no way Helen can distance herself from this. There is only a chance she will become more involved: Winston will involve her if he feels the deal over his removal is sub-standard. He’ll remain quiet if she offers him the chance to reform a government after the election. The only way Winston can stay afloat is because of the painfuly slow motions of the Police and SFO (ok, painfully slow to us, just practical to them) and Labour winning the election – which isn’t going to happen. The acts we’ve seen are pure desperation, they’re holding out for a one in a million chance and to skew the odds now would take an act of breathtaking corruption no none would miss – not even the hardcore 20 percenters. When Duncan “red tie” Garner has already called Labour’s questioning of Glenn “disgraceful” you know the penny has dropped.
No ACT advertisments today. I could pencil some in for…hmmm… next Monday? No wait, there is some time…
ACT, you know you want to. Give them both your votes.
Vote:September 12th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Helen isn’t putting a bullet in her lap dog’s head because she needs the dog to put a paw print on a money supply bill. Without that her Politburo can’t stagger on and she’ll have to call an early election.
http://www.kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com
Vote:September 12th, 2008 at 8:50 am
“..he was their bagman!.”
no helmet..he is the one bagmen approach..
(of course our most famous bag-man..
..is john key..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 12th, 2008 at 8:56 am
i don’t usually agree with helmet..
..but aside from a couple of (small) errors of fact..
..his/her summary of glenns’ visit/gaffes..and how he had given clark the wriggle room she needs..
..is pretty much on the money..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 12th, 2008 at 10:11 am
I reckon you are right on expat. Helen’s office has refused to answer Ian Wishart’s queries about the circumstance around Peter Davis leaving the States. Their refusal to answer makes one think what have they got something to hide. If Davis did get out of a spot of bother using a diplomatic passport Winston as Minister of Foreign Affairs would likely know.
I have no doubt if Winston feels the Helen has deserted him he will turn nasty. Unlike some who criticise Winston I think he did some good in the past and did a reasonable job as Minister of Foreign Affairs.
I was a member of NZF before Winston joined with Helen. I raised the issue of Helen and Peter’s sexual behaviour. Winston voluntarily repeated the rumour that Peter Davis edited a gay newspaper while at university. That would not be a crime but my point is the Winston would not hesitate to retaliate against his political enemies.
The above example could be considered muckraking. However, if what Wishart alludes to in the States has a merit that would involve corruption if it involved a cover up.
This would be similar to Clinton. The issue was not what he did but the length he went to denying that it happened.
I think Helen is desperately hoping the police might solve her problem. I doubt if she will get rid of Winston before the election. It is even more unlikely she will take a similar stance to Key regarding Winston.
Vote:September 12th, 2008 at 10:59 am
“..I was a member of NZF before Winston joined with Helen..”
so..chucky..you went to nz first for the asian-bashing..eh..?
..and stayed for the maori-bashing..?..eh..?
..figures..!
..racism/bigotry do go hand in hand..eh..?
(and..y’know..i reckon its’ odds-on you get a boner when you write comments like the above..eh..?)
it sorta goes/fits with yr ‘profile’..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 12th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Phil, I will not respond to your comment this time. However, if you want to persist in your nasty attacks do not start crying when I respond. It is your call.
Vote:September 12th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
bird..you are a vile little man..who peddles bigotry..
..you deserve all you get..
..haven’t you noticed that even your rightie compatriots steer well clear of you..?
..you are a bigot..
..what else is there to say..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 12th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Can someone explain how a stupid 22 y.o Google bomber, on John Keys site can make TV3 news as some kind of hero?
Isn’t bombing illegal?
http://www.3news.co.nz/GooglebombtargetsJohnKey/tabid/419/articleID/71185/Default.aspx?ArticleID=71185
Vote:September 12th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Phil, you think you can make unfounded personal attacks on me and then pathetically look for sympathy when I respond.
Firstly I will refute you baseless allegations. I have rented a number of flats over the years to people of different races including Maori. I judge people as individuals not by the colour of their skin. I would hate to think all whites were judged because of the odd social parasite such as you.
Secondly I know many Maori. The ones I know begrudge paying their taxes to support someone who uses a child as an excuse to bludge off taxpayers.
Unlike some on this blog I am not entirely opposed to benefits such as the DBP for those with young children. However, I strongly object to paying my taxes to a pathetic individual like you who is not prepared to make a minimal effort to set some sort of an example to the child that taxpayers such as me are paying you to raise.
Firstly, you should be setting you son an example and work to support him and yourself. Secondly, you should not be smoking dope. That is no sort of an example to set your son.
You had better hope that National does not get into power because I will be onto then to keep their election promise and cut you benefit and thereby break the cycle of intergenerational welfare dependency. I have your son’s best interst at heart more than you. Any 14 or 15 year old boy deserves a better father than. You are pathetic.
If you decide to respond instead crawling under a rock I will be away for the weekend in my motorhome. If you got off your ass you too could enjoy a few luxuries. I will be interested if others think I am being too mean. I do not think I am. I could actually be doing you a favour. When someone has been on a benefit as long as you they did a bit of encouragement to get them motivated.
Vote:September 12th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
so..a slum landlord is added to your list of ‘faults’..
“..You had better hope that National does not get into power because I will be onto then to keep their election promise and cut you benefit..”
i missed that policy release..
was it one that trevor did..?
what’s it called..?
…the ‘cut philus’ benefit’ promise..?
i..i’m sorta..honoured..(i think..)
and..it sorta fits you have/are a ‘proud’ owner of a ‘motorhome’..eh..?
..and i’ll betcha it’s got lace doilies in it..?
..and has some real naff name painted on it..
..and the internal colour scheme-theme..
..is brown/flowery velour..
..little chucky..in his motorhome..eh..?
..whew..!..life in the fast lane ..eh..?
..you really know how to ‘live’..eh..?
..brilliant..!
just puts my global travelling adventures in places like china/america etc..
..totally in the shade..eh chucky..?
compared to chuckys’ motorhome..eh..?
(empty/pump out your shit in some convenient piece of bush..?..
..do ya..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 12th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Philu, are you really that resentful of anyone who has made anything of themselves?
Vote:September 12th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
God please help philu, really is rather sad watching him foam and dribble everywhere.
Vote:September 12th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
hey dad4J. good to have you back!
Vote:September 12th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
resentful..?..of chuckys’ motorhome..?
um..!..no..!
i think it is bloody hilarious..
..what chucky sees fit to gloat/boast about..
what isn’t so funny..
..is that he is a nasty little bigot..
..and i’m really bigoted against nasty little bigots..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 12th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Philu. It obviously affects you if you keep going on about someone’s assets?
You should be happy for him that he has done well for himself.
I’m kinda detecting that Cullen “Rich Prick” resentfulness?
(and really you shouldn’t amend or add to your original comment to clarify or minimise the allegation after you get a response- it’s like cheating)
Vote:September 12th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Hey Phul
If a bigot is a person who despises you and everything you stand for….
If a bigot is a person who dislikes the fact that you steal from the real hard working men and Shelia’s of this country…
If a bigot is a person who wants you to go out and contribute to our society…
If a bigot is a person who wants you to set a good example to your kids…
If a bigot is a person who wants a govt free from corruption….
If a bigot is a person who sees right through the bullshit you spout in favour of “medical marajuana”…
If a bigot is a person who does not consider illegible crap posted at a site that NOBODY leaves comments on as work…
If a bigot is a person who wants to see the likes of you offered the choice of work or NO BENEFIT……
Then “BIGOT” is a label I would wear with pride.
Vote:September 12th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
How does a ex junky and a crim get into the States?
If you spent as much time working as whining you might have something when you no longer are able to use you son as a meal ticket.
National’s policy on the DPB is clear. You are going to have to go all day without smoking dope and have to get up in the morning and work. If you had of do so early you would not have to even get up in the morning if you did not want to – just have the rent and the dividends automatic go into your bank account. The only bad thing about it is they deduct the tax from the dividends to pay for your dope. I hope they make Judith Collins Minister of Social Welfare. I will have a word with her. I think I should make it my mission in life to get you off the DPB.
Vote:September 12th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
starr..have you met that really annoying/stalking lawyer guy yet..?
you should..
..i think you would be very happy together..
..picking/pernickiting away at each other..
..wouldn’t that be fun..?
..and of course..
..you two together..would mean two humans would be freed from the likes of you..and him..
..eh..?
..it’s a win win all around..
..doya want me to jack it up for you..?
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 12th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
where are you going in your motorhome..?
maybe to that paris of the hauraki plains..?
..matamata..?
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 12th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
I don’t know if anyone remembers the bitchscreaming from Philu when he thought someone crossed the mark?
LOL
Here it is for all to see. What a biache whacko (please Manalo, stop saying nasty things about me….I know a Peter Williams QC type pro bono who takes it!!!!!)
philu (2375) +0 Says:
July 21st, 2008 at 1:18 pm
y’know what man-so-low..
this is your last warning..
you repeatedly accuse me of manufacturing/peddling drugs..usually ‘p’..
do it one more time..
and i’m gonna sue your arse..
y’see..i’m not just a nom de blog..
i don’t hide behind that..(like you..)
people know who i am..
and as someone who kicked a junk habit..years ago..and now only smokes pot..
your slanders are particularly potent..
think on..!
(you might end up financing me off the domestic purposes benefit..eh..?
(a leftie lawyer has already offered her assistance..)
and i ask you dpf..to ‘do something’ about both manolo..and his ongoing slanders/accusations of drug manufacturing/peddling..
..and pushpull..for his threats..
..if not for this..what would a rightie have to do to motivate you to go..oi..!..?
i am serious with these requests..d.p.f..
i think many righties would also feel both are way past any pale..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Boo Hoo
Vote:what a joke!!!!!!!, Get a life a bit higher than your current sea snail dwelling Philu
September 12th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
just to add to that – You know something Philu. We are both probably at home looking after our kids tonight. – solo dads !!!!
The difference is I’ve just finished working a paid 10 hours today. No benefits, no handouts, no working for families, no concession on my 39 cents in the dollar theft by your mate Cullen.
My kids know how hard I work, how I organise their care, how I make sure they are provided for
Vote:—- and the good thing is I firmly believe I set an example for them!
September 12th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
i’m glad you feel so self-rightous..
about paying other people to look after your children..
..have you ever thought of asking them if they would rather you did that..?
..no..?
..didn’t think so..
..bit daunting..eh..?
..all day..every day..?
..much easier to pay someone else to do it..
…eh.?
..you fool..!..
..they will be grown up..
..and you will have ‘worked’ through it..
..and that’s the example you want to give them..?
..eh..?
go figure..!
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 12th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
No Phule, ever heard of working flexitime? You really search for any excuse don’t you!…….eh?
Given the amount of time you spend glued to the PC making bitter and resentful allegations about hard working folk I probably spend more time with my kids than you do!…go figure
When you finally take stock of your pathetic existence, when you stop listening to the encouragement of the PC, “Poor Me” brigade and focus on doing something for yourself then you may get the chip off both your shoulders.…eh.?..you fool..!..
Your resentment is plain for anyone to see. Just read your comments!!!!. You’re a resentful and sad little person at the moment –
In fairness it’s probably not all your fault – because you’re endorsed from the highest levels – just listen to Cullen!!! eh..rich prick?
go figure..!
you fuckwit
Vote:September 12th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Phul
Don’t you fucking dare talk about setting examples, you are a drug fucked wreck who would not know what a good example is let alone understand how to set one for kids.
Patrick is out there doing his bit and setting an excellent example while you are nothing more than a piece of shit that sticks to the bottom of ones shoes.
Ah fuck it, you are not even worth the effort, go and smoke some more P you useless waste of space.
Vote:September 12th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
don’t smoke ‘p’..
..have never smoked ‘p’
..in another time..in another place..i smoked crack cocaine..
..so why would i want to try ‘poor mans’ coke’..?.
.f.f.s..!
speed..!..the most garbage of drugs..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 12th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Philu.
Vote:Honestly, when you lose your resentment I’m happy to meet with you sometime to give you some advice on how you can do it?
I know you’re not thick. I know you’ve got a brain in your head (however misguided) Seriously I can share some advice if you want it?
I’m happy to help if you want some help?
September 12th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
i don’t feel any resentment..
(wot..?..for chuckys’ motorhome..?..nah..!..don’t think so..)
..i am just here arguing against your crap political ideas/ideologies..
..countering the ‘spin’..
..end of story..!
..so..thanks for the offer..but..
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 12th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
but what???
Im not talking about assisting you with political iseas/ideologies. I’m talking about giving advice on working as a solo parent??? dont make excuses!
I am happy to meet and talk about it ….IF changing your lifestyle is paramount to you at all?
Or are you completely happy being on a benefit????
Vote:September 12th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
if you want to throw some money at me to spend on whoar..fine..
otherwise..i am doing what i am doing..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 12th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Phil(u)seless:
Oh sookywahwah. I haven’t visited Kiwiblog for two days – and here you are (behind my back) accusing me of stalking you? Ah, I get it, you’re still smarting from the time I kicked your ass – in a discussion about life achievements!
And, I see you’ve been outed as a Wikipedia vandal:
And as DPF puts it so aptly:
So fuck off, Philu, if you’re going to preach to me about life achievements – or moral ethics.
Vote:September 12th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
so…………in other words, you’re completely happy being on a benefit?
You know something Philu, In the charitable trust I was a trustee of, and now an unpaid assistant (on top of my paid hard working income) I have never before been declined by anyone in helping them off a welfare benefit. You are the first !!!!
in saying that I must admit you haven’t surprised me at all. Judging by your comments I suspected as much.
Hope your umbrella fends off the fish shit that drops on you down there!
Vote:September 13th, 2008 at 12:00 am
” .. How about this and this philu, is that net-cool? philu went on a little rampage, with hilarious contributions like removing the controversies section from the Steve Maharey article, and various pathetic edits on the John Key article. After being reverted he whines:
MOST of what i wrote was just a bit of fun at key’s expense and you are welcome to Delete it
HOWEVER the bit about his socially conservative voting record is entirely valid
thanks – philu
But gets little sympathy:
You have removed sourced information indicating that his voting on some issues is conservative and on others more liberal, and substituted only the conservative votes. Combined with your childish insults, it is clear that you are not a neutral party, and should not edit Wikipedia on such subjects. I will continue to block you without further warning.-gadfium 01:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
No, not “net-cool” at all.
And as DPF puts it so aptly:
David Farrar (937) Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
DC: Very nice investigative work. So Phil U is a Wiki vandal also. Giving John Key the middle name of Slippery is pure vandalism. ..”
this is total fantasy..
..i have never edited anything on wikipedia..
..i wouldn’t know how to edit anything on wikipedia..
..i have never registered on wikipedia..
.so anything done on wikipedia in my name..
..is a forgery..
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 13th, 2008 at 12:08 am
it’s the sorta thing a smartarse stalking/obsessive/weird lawyer would do..
..would not the isp of the person pretending to be me on wikipedia help indicate who has done this..?
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 13th, 2008 at 12:13 am
Phil(u)seless:
Sorry, I’m not responsible for those Wikipedia entries, and I’m very happy for DPF to confirm this.
Vote:September 13th, 2008 at 12:13 am
Philu, You’re denials are sounding like winnie….eh?
“dc : September 10th, 2008 at 12:51 pm” really exposed you for the bitter little creep you are…eh?
Vote:September 13th, 2008 at 12:17 am
i’ll get on to this tomorrow..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 13th, 2008 at 5:42 am
Someone probably hacked your computer and did the wiki edits under your name Phil. Shit’s happened before.
Vote:September 13th, 2008 at 9:44 am
“.. David Farrar (937) Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
DC: Very nice investigative work. So Phil U is a Wiki vandal also. Giving John Key the middle name of Slippery is pure vandalism. ..”
dpf..is that a real comment by you..?
..or am i being ‘faked’ again..?
and if this wikipedia thing isn’t all made up..
..is there any way i can get it ‘put right’..?
..as i have never edited anything on wikipedia..
..your advice/response would be appreciated..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 13th, 2008 at 9:55 am
starr..
“..am happy to meet and talk about it..”
“..the bitter little creep you are..”
um..!..are you a tad schitzo/bi-polar..?
if not/no medical explanation..?
..you are definitly rather weird..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 13th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Philu:
See here:
That’s definitely DPF – it’s a stand-alone comment (cf his tag-on comments at the end of other people’s comments, which could conceivably be faked).
The problem you’ve got, I think, is that you have referred to Key as “slippery” on Kiwiblog before:
It took me <30 seconds to find that example – I could probably just as easily track down other examples too.
Vote:September 13th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
really big on convicting on slivers of circumstantial evidence..you righties..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote: