Choudary resigns illegal Directorship
June 17th, 2009 at 8:56 pm by David FarrarSix hours after I blogged on their illegal Directorships, Messrs Choudary and William Reddy resigned their Directorships of OSCM International Ltd.
It will be interesting to see if this means no action is taken against them for their false declarations.
June 17th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Do I detect a Ministerial in the making?
Vote:June 17th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Of course there will be no action taken against them – they are Labour party members!
Look at Parker, false company returns and allegations of selling assets out from under a receivership – did he get prosecuted – NO.
Vote:June 17th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Now we just have to find out why Worth got sacked
Vote:June 17th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Warning warning dog whistle detected
This must mean that that nice Mr Worth’s sacking (resignation?) was totally unjustified.
So when does he get invited back into the ranks of the National party?
Vote:June 17th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Burt
“Look at Parker, false company returns and allegations of selling assets out from under a receivership – did he get prosecuted – NO.”
Just a little problem.
Parker actually filed the correct return but had forgotten that he had done this. He resigned because he thought that he had not but he actually done the right thing.
He must be catholic, only a catholic would feel guilty because they were afraid they had done the wrong thing when they had actually done the right thing.
Vote:June 17th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Parker’s returns were contradictory. If one was true, the other was false. They “proved” one true, so therefore the other was a lie.
Of course, then there’s the other problem of the “proof” turning up so quickly, from hard to get to files, contradicting everything previously known and not on his normal letterhead. Yea, that doesn’t smell at all.
Worth was sacked because he lied to the PM, and he’s under criminal investigation. Let the police do their job.
Vote:June 17th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
the only thing worse that this kind of illegal behaviour is seeing the usual weasles here try deny or defect. dig deep fellas, somewhere way, way back in your past you must have had some integrity. drag it out, dust it off and join the principled ones (even if for a fleeting minute…) and condem the Choudary/Reddy actions.
Vote:June 17th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Bonkers, chronic et al: What is Phool Goof’s connection to the corrupt Choudarys and did any money change hands in the pursuit of consolidating the discrediting of National MPs and if so, is this acceptable behaviour from a party leader?
Vote:June 17th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Hurf Durf
“Bonkers, chronic et al: What is Phool Goof’s connection to the corrupt Choudarys and did any money change hands in the pursuit of consolidating the discrediting of National MPs and if so, is this acceptable behaviour from a party leader?”
I am not sure who you are referring to but how about you prove money changed hands. The overwhelming impression that I get from the evidence is that Worth was involved in totally inappropriate behaviour, Goff, out of deference for Mrs Worth tried to deal with it discretely. Key blew it wide open.
When Key says why he sacked Worth we can have a real debate about this. Perhaps you could ask him the reason why he sacked Worth?
Vote:June 17th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Are you born naive mickeysavage? Your love-affair with Labour is deadly.
Vote:June 17th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
GC
“Are you born naive mickeysavage? Your love-affair with Labour is deadly.”
I believe in sharing the love around!
Vote:June 17th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Goff and Choudarygate
On Radio Live with Willie and John Tamahere at 2.55 pm on Friday, 12 June, Labour Leader Phil Goff told a caller he did NOT know anything about the charges Neelan Choudary’s husband Kumar Choudary faced, at the time he (Goff) advised her on 26 November 2008 to take a support person along with her to her first meeting with Dr Richard Worth at Sylvia Park cafe in Auckland. When asked why he gave this advice to Neelam, he answered that he felt it was “prudent” advice.
And yet at that time he MUST have known about Chouarygate. Why? Because he knew that Neelan Choudary had missed out on the Labour Party nomination for the Botany electorate – due in large part to the fact that 11 serious multiple charges involving immigration fraud had been laid by police against her husband and his partner William Reddy – (see NZ Herald story 8/12/08 where Neelam and her husband are named. Kumar was convicted of six charges of criminal fraud).
Has Phil Goff knowingly made a “false declaration” on public radio and to the NZ Herald reporter Audrey Young regarding his knowledge of Choudarygate? Should he too should be called by Judge DKF Kiwiblog to resign and do 250 hours of community work as punishment, like Kumar?
Neelam Choudary was required to disclose details of Choudarygate (her ‘skeleton in her cupboard’) to Labour Party hierarchy in the nomination process, including the man who described her publicly as “strikingly attractive” – the same one who carefully vetted her nomination. Neelam’s husband was facing criminal charges to be heard in the Auckland District Court the week after he accompanied her to meet Dr Worth at Sylvia Park. In the end Kumar chose to remain in the car while she met Dr Richard Worth. Why did Goff advise Neelam to have the man facing 11 criminal charges wait in the car, rather than join his wife at the cafe with Dr Worth? Why did he think this was prudent. Join the dots!!
Vote:June 17th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Isn’t it obvious, micky? Worth was sacked because he was incompetent. Why do you need that explained? Would you like a diagram with lots of colourful pictures? Would that help?
Vote:June 17th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
SPCS
You should go and watch your blue movie collection.
Do you have access to Neelam’s declaration or application given to the Labour party?
Goff’s statements actually look accurate.
Was Worth part of the conspiracy? Surely he knew that Neelam’s husband was facing these charges at the same time that he wanted to give her a position on a Crown board and have his evil way with her? He must have known.
And Key must have known. When he stated in Parliament that he had faith in all of his ministers he must have known that Worth had been misbehaving. The statement was made at the same time that he lost faith in Worth. Therefore he lied.
He should be brought before the privileges committee for misleading Parliament.
And he should BURN IN HELL. HE WILL BURN IN HELL FOR LYING GOD DAMN HIM.
Vote:June 17th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
“at the same time that he wanted to give her a position on a Crown board and have his evil way with her?”
Oh really?
Vote:I missed the part where any of these allegations was proven.
Or any allegations of illegality at all.
Which is quite possible really, considering I glaze over while listening to the so called MSM flounder around this whole Worth affair and lose their investigatory powers when the story starts to “turn”
June 17th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
You didn’t “miss” anything Onelaw4all – micky just wet-dreamed that one up all by himself.
Vote:June 17th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Parker escaped prosecution because the return he filed was legally invalid but did not qualify as a false or misleading return.
Vote:June 17th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
onelaw4all
Worth is running this line. “I have not done anything criminal”. He does not state if he has or has not done anything immoral or unethical. If he did not want to have his evil way with her after offering her a Crown position he should deny this. He has not.
I think it is generally accepted that:
1. Worth wanted to offer Choudarey on the Lotteries Commission as well as other positions,
2. He texted and rang her a number of times,
3. She says the comments were inappropriate,
4. He replied by saying that he had done nothing criminal.
If he has not acted immorally or unethically then he should come out and say this. In fact we should have an inquiry to see if he has broken any rules. Key only has to say “yes” for this to happen.
Vote:June 17th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
metcalph
The return was accurate, checked with the Companies Office and reflected reality. You guys should check the record before making this s*&t up.
Vote:June 17th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
“Goff’s statements actually look accurate.” Yeah right!
Goff stated:
“I checked out her [Neelam Choudary's] story VERY CAREFULLY before I went to the prime minister, she had emails, she had telephone-logs, and the essence of her story was that she had been offered various positions by Dr Worth but … the overtone was in return for a relationship.
“The emails were personal, they were about ‘do you want to come swimming with me?’ … Do you want to take a holiday with me overseas, I want you to buy this see-through clothing. This woman is half Dr Worth’s age, she is a happily married woman with children, she was offended by it.” [Emphasis added]
Source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2470449/Woman-details-texts-and-calls-from-MP
Goff later admitted to the media that there were NO emails. He had made a ‘mistake’. What about the “explicit” phone texts of a sexual nature Goff claims Dr Worth sent to Mrs Choudary? None have been provided to John Key. No one in the media has agreed with Goff that the purported contents constitute “explicit” or offensive content of a sexual nature as he had claimed. BTW a phone text by itself or a series from only one party to a conversaton cannot be assessed properly for incriminating ‘evidence’ to support the accusation unless both caller’s texts and respondent’s texts are tabled in their entirety. Mrs Choudary has steadfastly refused to provide any texts to Mr Key or his chief of staff and Mr Goff provided no evidence whatsoever to Mr Key when he first raised the accusations of Mrs Choudary with him on 6 May 2009.
The see-thru dress Goff refers to is a complete lie. He apparently knows nothing about saris and Indian culture.
No texts or phone calls were made regarding a “transparent garment” or “see-thru” one. The word zardosi was used. Goff has interpreted zardosi to mean a transparent garment because it sounds salacious. Zardosi is not very transparent, actually. Zar means ‘gold’ and dosi means ‘embroidery. Garments are made of such material and are often used in bollywood films, of which Worth is a fan of. Zardosi is in fact defined as:
an intricate hand embroidery using gold, silver or multi-colored wire on a variety of fabrics. Traditional garment from India
Vote:June 17th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
SCPS or SPCA (depends on what movie you have been watching)
“Goff later admitted to the media that there were NO emails”
There were. Goff admitted he had not seen them. His initial statement may or may not have been accurate. He did not say that he had read the emails, he said that she had them. She told Goff she had them and he believed her.
“What about the “explicit” phone texts of a sexual nature Goff claims Dr Worth sent to Mrs Choudary? None have been provided to John Key.”
Well they were. Neelam provided Key with the text of these. She has not steadfastly refused to produce them. Key seems pretty convinced that Worth should burn in hell.
“The see-thru dress Goff refers to is a complete lie. He apparently knows nothing about saris and Indian culture.”
Worth wanted Neelam to buy a see through sari. Prove otherwise.
“Zardosi is not very transparent”. To a perfert quite transparent is good enough.
How about you compare Neelam’s statement to Worth’s statement and then make a judgment.
You are backing the sinner, the philanderer, the person who offered positions for other positions.
Before making unjustified accusations against people who are essentially god faring people (christian or hindu) you should check out the soul of the philanderer known as Worth and decide if he should actually be supported.
Because he MAY BE A SINNER, and he MAY BURN IN HELL.
Vote:June 17th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
micky – when is Gormless Goff going to front up with the “see-through clothing” text?
Or the emails?
Or anything?
Worth is history sure, but the bigger story here is Labour’s leader – evidently an even bigger “stupid-old-fool” than Worth!
If Goff is thick enough to be sucked in by the “strikingly attractive” Ms Choudary’s threadbare stories, he will never be capable of running the country. How long will Labour continue with his embarassingly incompetent temporary leadership?
Vote:June 17th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
3-coil
“Worth is history sure, but the bigger story here is Labour’s leader – evidently an even bigger “stupid-old-fool” than Worth!”
Let us see, on the one hand a Government Minister allegedly offering Crown positions for sexual favours, on the other hand the leader of the opposition tries to deal with it discretely, and after the PM blurts it out he makes some short statement that when analysed could mean what he intended to say or could possibly mean something else.
Let us all jump on the something else interpretation and say there is a conspiracy! And if we shout it loud enough and often enough opinion leaders like Bill Ralston may believe it and stupid people may believe it!!
Goff is fine and actually quite cool. Check out the Mt Albert byelection results and shudder!
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 12:00 am
mickysavage, computer says no.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 12:08 am
Yeah, Labour and Goof are so hot right now.
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/curiappa.jpg
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 12:09 am
micky: I don’t care a toss about any conspiracy theory – if it was a conspiracy, it was a dismal failure!
Goff got sucked in.
Goff has shot himself in both feet AND has egg on his face!
Why would NZers vote for such a fool as Goff to lead the country in 2011 -you can’t seriously be considering having him lead Labour into the next election? Why are the Labour team so tolerant of his bumbling incompetence – because there is nobody else to step forward?
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 12:14 am
LEAD.GOFF.09 looks a good buy on iPredict at the moment.
Should be a stock for DAVID.BAIN.ARRESTED.09 there too…
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 6:28 am
Shit Mickey, I hope you got paid overtime for the above thread disassemble.
Would you mind telling us what other persona’s you have/ have had at Kiwiblog?
I bet you’ve had a few haven’t you? Naughty boy.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 8:13 am
They came ‘clean’ albeit after being outed by Kiwiblog. This would mitigate any sentence and probably means that prosecutions are not worth bothering with.
The false declaration – I am still trying to get my head round it. If for some reason they honestly believed it was correct, I would give the benefit of the doubt. However if it was as clear as day from the wording of the form that they were falsely signing the declarations, the authorities should clobber them.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 8:21 am
Welcome to left wing wanker thread where mickey rules.
Vote:June 18th, 2009 at 8:42 am
I was gong to just do a quick cut and paste job to show Mickey’s double standards. You know how he demands proof for anything anti labour, yet uses the term “generally accepted” when proving anything anti nat. Then I thought, why do I need to cut and paste it. Most people here are sitting in the centre to centre right of the spectrum, and as such, all you have to do, is say: “Look at the double standards Mickey uses through out this thread.” The majority of readers would quickly scan up and say. “Yep, get that”
The only reason to put together the proof would be for those who:
1) Are too lazy to have a quick look themselves.
2) Are not smart enough, to make the connection.
3) Believe that other should provide everything on a plate to them.
4) Would argue black and blue that you are wrong until you put the proof in front of them.
5) Would suggest that you are making the proof up until you provide the physical links to the proof.
6) Would say that you are taking he proof out of context
7) Will then phone a few mates to get on the blog and attack by calling you a racist, bigot and every other name under the sun including “rich prick”.
In other words just the lefty tolls.
Vote:Then I thought, jesus, I have just described the end result of 9 years of labour toil in the make-up of NZ.
June 18th, 2009 at 10:30 am
So it’s OK now, he broke the law but now he’s not breaking it we”ll just let it go. Acting retrospectively, must be a labour supporter.
Vote: