Young and Espiner on Peters

September 11th, 2008 at 9:46 am by David Farrar

Both and blogged yesterday on Winston Peters. I’ll start with Audrey:

It has become a lot clearer now as to why the spin machine has been in overdrive for months over ’s character – and it has been awful.

Note how Audrey says Labour has been denigrating Glenn, their largest donor, for months.

They were worried about what he would say about them, not just Winston Peters.

And he has said it – that he consulted before ringing Peters on December 14 to agree to give him $100,000 for the Tauranga electoral petition.

And more importantly that he told back in February that he had given Peters $100,000 for Peters’ legal fees. He reiterated that point at a press conference this morning at the Hilton Hotel in Auckland.

And the records back Glenn. He had brunch with Mike Williams and phoned Winston at 11.30 am Sydney time. It would have been mere minutes after Williams had left, if he had left. Glenn says there is no way he would have donated without Labour’s okay, which he got from Mike Williams.

Williams’ reputation has already suffered badly from the Labour Party conference episode – he denied having endorsed the distribution of Government literature when a tape recording proved he had actually said it was “a damned good idea”.

He lied about something he said in front of 500 people, so indeed his denials in this case have to be judged in that context.

Labour has been saying for ages it would be terrific if Owen Glenn appeared in person before the privileges committee because people could assess for themselves his credibility – or lack of it; how easily confused he gets.

Having heard him at privileges, seen him on Campbell Live, heard him being interview by Kathryn Ryan on Nine to Noon and heard parts of the press conference at the Hilton today, it is hard to fault his credibility.

Michael Cullen tripped him up over one of the paragraphs of his testimony – the matter of whether he had called Winston or Winston had called him in early December.

But Glenn has been cogent, coherent, sane, sharp, in command of his senses and memory and very colourful.

Indeed. And he has factual evidence that supports his version of events – a version that has never significantly altered.

It is hard to imagine how Peters and can counter the damning phone records and email testimony.

And they failed to do so yesterday.

If Glenn is telling the truth, then how can Peters and Henry account for the “third person” – the alleged client they told the privileges committee existed.

I would bet money that the alleged third person is Roger McClay, whose taxpayer funded job appeared to be raising money for NZ First and Winston.

And how they account for the press statement issued on July 18 a few hours after Peters’ mother died saying Henry had just told him about the Glenn donation.

I feel sickened at the thought of it.

That’s an honest raw emotion. And it is sickening when you think of it. Owen Glenn has proven beyond reasonable doubt Peters solicited the money and knew of it. So if you believe Owen Glenn (and Peters has failed to cast serious doubt on it), then Peters knew all along, and hence the announcement of his “having just found out from Brian Henry” on 18 July was a deliberate decision to release the information a few hours after the news of his mother’s death filtered out.

I also feel sick even typing the above, but that is the only conclusion one can draw, if you accept Owen Glenn’s version of events. I know that is ultra harsh, but again unless Owen Glenn is a pathological liar, then the decision to release the truth about the donation was deliberately timed.

Colin Espiner looks at Labour’s role:

I thought Clark suffered a rare pasting in Parliament this afternoon, with National leader John Key finally getting on a roll and managing to land a few punches on the Prime Minister: “The reason she has never sacked Winston Peters is  because she is up to her eyeballs in this and what happened yesterday was that the truth jetted into town.”

It was a great line – so good he repeated it at least three more times. It’s a pity National didn’t follow this up with a more sustained assault rather than reverting to business-as-usual questions. But Key was right, however; Clark is up to her neck in this fiasco and it’s plain she’s had enough.

At a minimum Helen Clark knew the truth in February 2008. However she may have known as far back as December 2005. She was never asked in the House yesterday whether or not she had any discussions at all, of any sort, with Mike Williams over Owen Glenn helping out with the Tauranga electoral petition. She was asked some questions on her knowledge, but said (off memory) that she had not had a conversation of that nature – it was a denial of a specific allegation, not a denial of any conversations at all with Williams in 2005 over Glenn.

I reckon if she does sack Peters she will call the election date as well. It would be a good way of brushing the ongoing fiasco off the front pages and cutting Peters and his party loose. Not that she’ll need to do that – NZ First will be furious if she sacks Peters before the privileges committee reports back and its agreement with Labour will be toast.

That won’t bother Clark – the last time she needs NZ First’s votes is later today, when the Emissions Trading Scheme has its third and final reading.

But NZ First will have a point. Clark has long championed Peters’ right to due process and natural justice. Sacking him half-way through the hearing would be a bit like the judge at a murder trial telling the defence that she’s heard enough – just take him out the back and hang him.

But politics doesn’t really operate like a court – even at the privileges committee, supposedly one of the highest courts in the land. Politics is neither as orderly as a court nor as fair.  And it’s becoming obvious that Peters’ right to natural justice exists only as long as it is politically expedient for Clark to allow it.

There’s no question she is running out of time. Peters is an albatross around her neck and if she doesn’t cut the strings soon she will sink along with him.

I hope she delays the decision as long as possible then!

As I blogged yesterday, the key issue is not so much whether Clark sacks Peters, but whether she rules out a post-election deal with NZ First.

John Key has said he will not strike a deal with NZ First, even if it means staying in Opposition rather than becoming Prime Minister. Will Clark rule out a deal if she sacks Peters, but somehow NZ First gets back in?

UPDATE: My wish is granted. Clark is delaying a decision until next week, after Brian Henry’s next appearance.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

47 Responses to “Young and Espiner on Peters”

  1. philu (12,989 comments) says:

    is nobody even slightly disturbed by the repeated allegations from glenn..that williamson ‘turned up uninvited’ at his yacht in monaco/wherever..

    ..and yet williamson produces an email..from glenns’ p.a…confirming his invitation to stay..and the dates..?

    dosen’t just the fact that that irrefutable (repeatedly claimed by glenn) sorta sleazy/personal slur against williams..

    ..turns out to be a total lie..

    ..disturb/cause you to pause at all..?

    ..especially when the lynching party is placing so much stock on the veracity of glenns’ other allegations..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    [DPF: Actually the email does not disprove what Glenn said. It is not an invite saying Dear Mike when are you next over in Europe, come see me on my boat.

    It is presumably a response to an approach from Williams saying hey I am in Europe, is Owen around as I would like to see him. And she replied with the details.

    Williams himself has said previously he initiated the contact, so he could ask him for more money.

    And regardless it is academic – the phone log and the e-mail are evidence that condemn Peters, not just the tesimony]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. s.russell (1,650 comments) says:

    Peters is an albatross around her neck and if she doesn’t cut the strings soon she will sink along with him.

    I think Clark has her eye on the numbers. It is really quite simple. Despite everything Peters is still going to get some votes (maybe 3 percent). Now that Key has cut Peters off, those votes are there for her taking. Even if her support for him cost Labour 4 percent of the vote, it would be worth it if it gets him back into Parliament (with 5 percent) as her ally. Peters still represents her best chance to win the election.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. philu (12,989 comments) says:

    and why did no mainstream media journalist ask him just that (to me..bleeding obvious) question..?

    ..hanging as it does..in his/any credibility..?

    ..instead of just running in a sycophantic pack..

    ..lips firmly attached to his arse..

    ..and hanging off/slavishly regurgitating his every word..

    ..and once again..failing in their (basic) journalistic duties/responsibilities..

    ..were they the ones hoping/angling for a ‘glenn-job’..?

    ..ffs..!

    ..how can that not be shabby/shoddy journalism..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. NoCash (262 comments) says:

    philu

    Glenn said that Williamson “invited himself” (not “turned up uninvited”, don’t twist the words), which could mean Williamson emailed Glenn asking if he could meet him at the yacht. Glenn being nice asked his PA to reply saying sure and confirming the date and time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. philu (12,989 comments) says:

    his exact words were ‘turned up uninvited’..

    ..and all that implies..

    ..and said repeatedly..

    ..you’re the one ‘twisting’..darling..

    ..and it wasn’t just ‘the date and time’..

    ..it’s an invitation to ‘stay’..

    ..phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Yvette (2,763 comments) says:

    When is the next party poll due? – that will surely indicate whether Winston is ‘judged by the people’ as he desires, and also galvanise Helen into action, if she hasn’t already taken it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. PhilBest (4,757 comments) says:

    GO, “new media” !!! DPF, your coverage of this issue is superb.

    S.Russel, I am depressed to have to agree with that awful possibility. I find it daily distressing that more than 1 in 3 of the ordinary Kiwi people among whom I move, are so sick in the head that they may well put such a regime back into power. And it is not just the last 3 years (or the last 9) that makes that such a sickening thought, it is what this regime MIGHT YET DO if they get to claim a “mandate” yet again.

    PLEEEEEZE, people of NZ, restore our faith in you all by tipping, throwing, chucking, landsliding, this corrupt regime out of power; decimate them, punish them, pulverise them at the polls; keep them in the political wilderness for TERMS and make them crawl back, force them to purge, cleanse and rehabilitate their whole rotten establishment; so that it is a completely new, unrecognisable “NZ Labour Party” that ever gets to resume any sort of power ONE DAY, maybe, if they can earn our forgiveness.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Ross Miller (1,618 comments) says:

    philu … the question surely is who did the inviting. If Williams sought a meeting then he invited himself.

    Has anyone actually read the e-mail … I mean Williams certainly flashed something in the face of the TV cameras but has anyone perused it? Might help clarify the situation but perhaps the real question is what was Williams doing racing round Europe hitting up fellow socialists for dosh and what was he offering in return. Government contracts perhaps!!!!!

    Not sure I agree with the calls for Helen to sack Winston. In fact I would go so far as to plead with her to keep hugging him to her bosum. She deserves him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. GJ (329 comments) says:

    I notice that the QC of Winston Peters is keeping very very quiet after his boisterous start. To an extent his reputation is also on the line. I wonder if he has now seen enough to realize it would be smarter to keep his head low. Very interesting!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. NeillR (351 comments) says:

    I can’t figure how Winston hasn’t realised he’s been played? Sure, Clark has started to take the hits, but she’s only kept Winston around until the legislation can be passed. At any point now Winston can be sacked, which wasn’t the case while the ETS hadn’t passed – yet he doesn’t seem to realise it. The only other explanation is that they’re going to stick together through thick and thin (which is why i’ve taken a short position on him being sacked on ipredict ;))

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. ernesto (257 comments) says:

    Still can’t get past the fact that Glenn is still a proven liar and fudger of details – he told the DomPost he was offered a ministerial position – and accepted that he had made it all up. On that basis, his evidence can only be believed with corroboration which is lacking in many respects. He should also have been smarter than to use a lawyer tainted like Geoff Harley. This is well outside Harleys limited tax specialty – so why did Glenn hire him … to save money?? Why not go to one of the normal Wellington QC’s (Carruthers, Upton, MacDonald) or big firms (ChenPalmer). Glenn lacks too much credibility to end a mans career, irrespective of politics. He is a businessman used to bragging and telling young girls his war stories (and good on him). I am sure he does a lot more talking than listening.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Bevan (3,232 comments) says:

    his exact words were ‘turned up uninvited’..

    Is that all you’ve got? After all the damning evidence against your man Peter’s, all the times he has been caught telling porkies, you want to discard all of Owen Glenn’s evidence on a percieved misspeak? FFS, of all the low depths to sink to in defense of Winston. How does it feel Phil, for a greenie to be running defense for the NZ First leader?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Alice (17 comments) says:

    My prediction is that Clark will never ever sack Peters – she will leave it for the Privileges Commitee, SFO, Police or anyone else looking into Winston Peters to do the sacking for her. This is because Peters has a huge pile of dirt on her and has made it very clear that if she takes him down, he’ll take her down with him.

    However, once he is eventually sacked by the parties invesitgating him, he will go for the juggular and make public all of the stuff Clark has been up to behind the scenes – especially over the last term in Government. Clark’s response to all of Winston Peters accusations against her will be to just state that he is ‘confused’ and ‘a drunk’ and is just angry over his sacking.

    The irony in all of this is that when Winston Peters does go public with the dirt he has on Clark – he really will be telling the truth then (for the first time in his life) and yet no one will believe him because Clarks smear campaign against him will be in full throttle by then and it will be too late.

    Clark is more than up to her neck in this one. She is centre stage. Her moral compass went out the door years ago (if she ever even had one). My bet is that her involvement in the Owen Glenn scandel is only the tip of the ice berg and we won’t know all of the other shoddy dealings she’s been up to until there is a change in government and all the people she has double crossed over the years feel brave enough to come forward.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. slightlyrighty (2,098 comments) says:

    Keys performance in the house yesterday was good. He had Helen on the ropes, and worked her into a corner so that the fate of Winston is now even more linked to the fate of Helen.

    I did especially like the references to the “Clark-Peters government”! Just to reiterate that one can’t survive without the other.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. unaha-closp (1,067 comments) says:

    Glenn says there is no way he would have donated without Labour’s okay, which he got from Mike Williams.

    Is it legal for one political party to arrange payment to another? It seems like an extreme corruption of democracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. burt (7,428 comments) says:

    DPF

    Did you notice the technicality surrounding the allegation that Glenn made about Williams shouting lunch to induce voters?

    Glenn said that Williams bought them lunch on Sunday after the election and Williams denied buying them lunch on election day.

    Might be worth getting this one cleared up as Williams was emphatic about not buying lunch on election day but that was not what Glenn alleged.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. emmess (1,398 comments) says:

    Mike Williams showed the journalist on TV1 the email
    Why he didn’t read it out to the public is beyond me

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. burt (7,428 comments) says:

    Turned up uninvited…

    Come on… Williams rings Glen to arrange a visit, tells Glenn he wants to come and see him. Glenn sends an email saying he can stay and what date works for him. Williams take the confirmation that he can stay as being invited. Splitting hairs….

    How can parliament have become so bereft of ethical standards that voters need to decide who is telling the truth. It’s a disgrace.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. dave (821 comments) says:

    And it’s becoming obvious that Peters’ right to natural justice exists only as long as it is politically expedient for Clark to allow it.
    Exactly. Its not about justice or democracy, or even about the privileges committee – the latter committee is filibuster to extend political expediency.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Al-Girta (55 comments) says:

    Williams the bagman wintering on Glenn’s yacht. All for the workers of course.
    Parasites.

    Peters Bank Account First party could be killed today if all the other parties take the same stand as National. ACT, Maori Party, United, Greens & Uncle Tom Cobblers whats happening? Or are you as self serving as Helen Clark.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. dave strings (607 comments) says:

    PhilU

    Be careful what you phrase – you’ve already made one fatal mistake this week, asking what the value of someone who makes no contribution is (and somehow never did get around to responding to the challenge of mine, making you the one hoist on the petard).

    Winston is very clever at using exact words, as one wold expect from a lawyer who has to tread carefully; most people aren’t – particularly business people. If there was a phone-call from Williams saying something along the lines of “I want to come and see you about something, can you put me up – I’ll be there on Furgeday?” that could easily be referred to as ‘arriving uninvited’, despite there being an email confirming it was OK to stay on the boat.

    Of all people you, with your lack of grammar, incomprehensible punctuation and poor phraseology should be aware that having people analyse your choice of words in a dialogue is somewhat over analysing the situation.

    So let’s look at established facts.

    1 Glen gave money to Labour
    2 Glen gave money to Winston Peters’ legal fund
    3 Glen loaned money interest free to labour
    4 Glen gave money to build a monument to his name in Auckland University
    5 Glen give money to child charities
    6 Glen spent AT LEAST UK-Pounds 15,000 (say NZ$40,000) on two airfares from London to Wellington to clear his name
    7 Glen, like Key, is a self made multi-millionaire and can afford his philanthropy
    8 Glen has an EA who not only looks good, but also has an effective filing system and can retrieve documents as needed.
    9 Glen has uninvolved 3rd parties swearing affidavits on the voracity of his statements

    Against these facts we have Peters saying ‘I should be believed – I don’t take money from big business, I despise trust accounts funding political parties and there is a conspiracy to bring me down that has been active for over 12 years.

    My decision, if I were an independent juror on this ‘trial’ would be pretty clear and beyond reasonable (not a shadow of, but reasonable) doubt.

    Your position is that he may have mis-tensed a verb!

    I wonder which has the greater support, your position or mine?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. philu (12,989 comments) says:

    “..# Bevan (1342) Vote: Add rating 3 Subtract rating 0 Says:
    September 11th, 2008 at 10:37 am

    his exact words were ‘turned up uninvited’..

    Is that all you’ve got? After all the damning evidence against your man Peter’s, all the times he has been caught telling porkies, you want to discard all of Owen Glenn’s evidence on a percieved misspeak? FFS, of all the low depths to sink to in defense of Winston. How does it feel Phil, for a greenie to be running defense for the NZ First leader?..”

    bevan..are you saying you cannot see the signifigance of glenn repeatedly slurring williamson in that way..?

    ..and it being untrue..?

    that is not insignificant..

    and as for me being a ‘greenie running defense for peters’..?

    ..i have already noted that i resile from the lynch-mob mentality..

    ..and all i am doing is pointing out things others seem to have missed/not noted enough..

    ..and y’know..that ‘quaint’ notion of due process..?

    ..something key/national/dpf all seem glad to do away with..

    ..an allegation’ll do ya..?

    ..eh..?

    ..and i repeat..unless the sfo lay serious fraud charges against peters..

    ..he will be back post-election..

    ..and that will be about the time key realises how much he fucked up..

    ..cos’ if national thought peters hated them before..

    ..they ain’t seen nothing yet..

    ..(and that is almost enough to wish him back..

    ..to have him sit there like a toxic toad..

    ..squirting/ejaculating bile all over a hapless national..

    ..as they sit on the opposition benches..

    (heh-heh..!..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. damocles (79 comments) says:

    There’s now no point lobbying for Dear Leader to sack Luigi — in fact, it would be counter-productive for those of a blue tinge. The ETS is passed, doesn’t seem to be much left in the regulatory bag worrying about (E&OE).

    Let’s encourage She Who Must Be Obeyed to hold on tight to WP, attracting odium all the way to November 8.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. philu (12,989 comments) says:

    strings..chalk that up as (yet) another challenge of yours i’ve ignored..eh..?

    (psstt..!..b.t.w..i don’t think number 8 does your ‘case’ much good..eh..?..)

    (..and.um..!…’voracity (sic) of his statements’..?

    heh..!..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    Privileges Committee yesterday
    Heather Roy: “Tell me Mr Peters, you were seen holding a smoking gun, standing over a bullet riddled dead body, in an area where only you and the deceased were. There are no other suspects and no other explanations. What say you to that?

    Winston Peters: “I’m glad you asked that question….because its important…now I want you to listen very carefully to the answer, Mr Glenn denied Mr Henry telephoned him in late November 2005 but you will notice Mr Glenn cannot and does not provide one shred of evidence to prove Mr Henry did not phone him. I find that bewildering and proves Mr Glenn, like Mr Bob Jones claims were untrue, a point they now both accept.
    In Mr Henrys letter to the committee of 7th September for this committees perusal and before Mr Glenn’s new evidence again makes it clear that the reference to a “client” in the sense that this person was behind the reference to Mr Glenn by Brian Henry….is not Winston Peters.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. getstaffed (8,040 comments) says:

    Mike Williams showed the journalist on TV1 the email
    Why he didn’t read it out to the public is beyond me

    Anyone got a link to this footage? I glanced at the email on TV and though that it didn’t look like one generated from any email client that I’m familiar with. Could it be that the content was fabricated, and the format fabricated but perhaps flashed a little too long?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Grant Michael McKenna (1,110 comments) says:

    In South Africa I saw the SA National Party cling to the policies of apartheid long after their failure was apparent; the desire for the rewards of office and the fear of future retribution kept them going long after they should have gone. The compelling sense of familiarity when I look at the Labour Party almost makes this an experience of déjà vu.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. GPT1 (2,021 comments) says:

    Guyon Espiner referred to Clark having to put up with a festering sore that is Winston Peters

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. side show bob (3,410 comments) says:

    Whats the bet the poodle and Dear Leader came to an agreement some weeks ago. Both these charlatans are so far up each others arses they might as well be siamese twins. She needed him as much as he needed her, she to get the EFS passed and he for her protection against the wolves. It’s no suprise the Dear Leader won’t move against him, I bet Winnie put the hard word on her weeks ago when this issue look like comming to a head.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. gd (1,780 comments) says:

    Sigh Peters has the wood on Clark over the LAX incident and the issuing of a diplomatic passport. If she dumps him he can quite easily leak the details thru an untraceable 3rd party.

    This would sink her and the Socialists big time It would make the Peters/Glen matter a mere bagatelle.

    fact is folks the citizens would be revolted by the details and she knows that. we have a very purutancial streak in our pysche and it would very quickly rise to the surface

    She cannot afford for the matter to get out

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. philu (12,989 comments) says:

    sorry..williams..

    ..so..allegations of ‘manufacturing evidence’ now..eh..?

    face it..the increasingly strident/hysterical tones from national/dpf show only an awareness that..

    .. ‘shit..!..it might not work..!..this orchestrated plan..”

    .and the post-election implications..

    ..are now sinking in..

    ..phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Thomas the Unbeliever (141 comments) says:

    Agree with Burt and others. If this is the best Williams can come up it is weak. This story should not have made the screen except as a demonstration of how Williams was clutching at straws.

    Clearly Williams did not just “turn up” on Glenn’s Yacht in France. Equally he was not invited to come – he invited himself and notified Glenn of his intention.

    The email from Glenn’s PA (which WIlliams waved around) is effectively confirmation that although Glenn was not seekinga meeting, Williams could come and see him on the yacht.

    Glenn’s phrasing had some hyperbole – but was accurate. He did not invite Wiliams – Wiliams invited himself.

    By giving this Williams email story legs the media have just further confused those unable to discern the difference between evidence that is “concrete reinforced with steel” and evidence that is “bullshit on stilts” – (Thanks Rodney)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. philu (12,989 comments) says:

    “..[DPF: Actually the email does not disprove what Glenn said. It is not an invite saying Dear Mike when are you next over in Europe, come see me on my boat.

    It is presumably a response to an approach from Williams saying hey I am in Europe, is Owen around as I would like to see him. And she replied with the details…”

    he was invited to a ‘sleepover’..dpf..

    and you know full well glenns’ (repeated) ‘he turned up uninvited’..was a slur against williams..

    ..and couched/presented by glenn to indicate williams turning up on the wharf..and going oi!!..

    ..that glenn did that..to me..casts serious doubts on his credibility/’memory’..

    ..phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. PhilBest (4,757 comments) says:

    Give up, philu, every other Lefty Troll has…….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. emmess (1,398 comments) says:

    >>Anyone got a link to this footage? I glanced at the email on TV and though that it didn’t look like one generated from any email client that I’m familiar with. Could it be that the content was fabricated, and the format fabricated but perhaps flashed a little too long?

    Getstaffed, try one of the links here
    http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1318360/2069005

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. philu (12,989 comments) says:

    “..Give up, philu, every other Lefty Troll has…….”

    c’mon..!..

    you can’t see the humour in all the pundits/experts declaring..with absolutely no reservations..

    ..that peters was ‘gone by lunchtime’..?

    ..(in a group premature ejaculation..?)

    ..looks like a long wait after breakfast for them all..

    ..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Bevan (3,232 comments) says:

    bevan..are you saying you cannot see the signifigance of glenn repeatedly slurring williamson in that way..?

    ..and it being untrue..?

    that is not insignificant..

    Yet you’ve decided to ignore the numerous slurs on Owen Glenn by Labour MP’s since February? But god forbid he misspeak! You are a grade A hypocrite.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. dave strings (607 comments) says:

    PhilU

    >Voracity:
    >verb
    >definition: Having or marked by an insatiable appetite for an activity or pursuit

    in this case, the pursuit of truth in re the Peters affair. (missed that day at school did you, or did you think appetite and food were inextricably linked?)

    As for number 8, here we have a small organisation (an individual) with an ‘administrator’ who can turn up what is needed when it is needed, unlike some political parties I could name. I guess you just don’t appreciate the female form then.

    … eh…!!

    Bit of a nine-bob note

    …..eh…!!

    I go back to ignoring you, like everyone else here with any sense. Gaia knows I tried!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. philu (12,989 comments) says:

    please try harder..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. philu (12,989 comments) says:

    “..Yet you’ve decided to ignore the numerous slurs on Owen Glenn by Labour MP’s since February? But god forbid he misspeak! You are a grade A hypocrite…”

    so you are accepting glenn mislead..

    yet your answer is a version of…’i know i am..but what are you..?’..(!)

    cor..!

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. gd (1,780 comments) says:

    I keep hearing that song LA International Airport by Joannie Mitchell I keep wondering why

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Bevan (3,232 comments) says:

    so you are accepting glenn mislead..

    I see I am arguing with an idiot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. carlyp (25 comments) says:

    This is the biggest political scandal in NZ in my living memory, yet the media compulsively fail to see the big picture or ask any hard questions.

    Where’s Woodward & Bernstein when we need them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. philu (12,989 comments) says:

    “..yet the media compulsively fail to see the big picture or ask any hard questions..”

    are you talking about keys’ secret meetings with rightwing financier lord ashcroft..?

    ..and just what they talked about/planned..?

    (i know..!..i know..!..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. PhilBest (4,757 comments) says:

    “philu”, have you read “Dirty Politics, Dirty times”, by Lord Ashcroft?

    You should be VERY, VERY afraid of the same thing happening here, boyo, the corrupt links between MSM journalists and socialist politicians getting busted wide open in court, damages awarded, apologies published, people sacked, people jailed, even. Just because one guy who could afford to prosecute the matter indefinitely through the Courts, did so, in the face of bully-boy tactics from the bloody socialists in power that cost him hundreds of millions in wrecked business deals. Thank heaven that the institution of the Courts in the UK at least has not fallen to the onslaught of the socialists march through the institutions.

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