Who didn’t come to this conclusion several years ago!?

On a related note, I haven’t seen mickey or Jack all day and phool has been quieter than usual.

..click on his name and read what pops up…explains all…another liarbor lickspittle…

August 5th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Interesting comment. I recall seeing something on one of the Pacifica programmes along these lines. A Somoan MP basically saying it would be rude if he didn’t take gifts from his constituients and was sure that was all TPF was doing.

Hmmm.

I would say in the Samoan MP case you mentioned, it is a matter of ethics. The MP does not have to accept gifts from his constituents! But it is a good excuse (and one that Philip Feild used) for him to use to try and justify his ends!

I think of those Samoan (etc) churches which expect their congregation to cough up a lot collection money (and the more money, then supposedly the better). Again there is an obligation from the common man (and woman) of the congregation to cough up when people in authority ask. Ditto the same applies to Philip Feildand this Samoan MP. They know they have their people at their beck and call!

Ironically all this goes against mainstream Left thinking of course (eg propping up privilaged people in power) so one hopes Samoans (especially those in NZ) get some backing from mainstream kiwis to question these blatant abuses of power!

Now if Key had said, “so we have some-one we dont want any more but we are not going to say who it is.” But you sound lioke a jilted lover plaintively asking “But why dont you love me any-more”. There is just no reason to say why. It is of absolutely no consequence.

Interesting comment. I recall seeing something on one of the Pacifica programmes along these lines. A Somoan MP basically saying it would be rude if he didn’t take gifts from his constituients and was sure that was all TPF was doing.

Hmmm.

I have a better source for you:

In Parliament yesterday, National MP Lockwood Smith asked if Helen Clark’s “maintenance of regular contact with Taito Phillip Field led her to stand by her statement of 14 September last year: “I think the only thing he is probably guilty of is trying to be helpful to someone; if not, why not?”

She replied: “Indeed I think he was, but I am awaiting a full report.”

In that specific context, that’s clearly short-form for: “Indeed I think he was probably guilty of trying to be helpful to someone“. So Clark didn’t deny making the quoted statement, which she could easily have done, and actually endorsed it. I’d love to see “r0b” at The Standard (a dedicated Labour party hack) argue otherwise.

Hansard seems a bit off-colour so I can’t pull up the actual parliamentary transcript of this exchange – can anyone else assist?

Let me give you a senario. Now I am not for a moment suggesting that this is in fact the way it is. Just a senario.
Say Worth has actually ended up in some-one’s bedroom a number of times, who is not his wife but is in act some-one who can cause problems for the government. Now Key decides rightly to get rid of Worth because he can become an embarrassment. However up to now in the media we simply have rumour and innuendo that tend to die away eventually. However if Key comes out and confirms it, it will be in the history books forever. So who loses the most? Key is vindicated in the eyes of the left for spilling the nasty details. Worth is no better off and no worse off. the general public does not gain anything as the only ones really interested in the sordid details are the ones who might have used up their porn budget for the month. So who really is affected. Well Worths wife and family. And just maybe, that is a price, Key is not prepared to pay.

Like I said just a theory and there is 4 or 5 more that explains it just as well.

However if your porn budget is exhausted for the month, I am sure google would be your buddy.

Halcyon days for Labour-Hate-Blog!

The point I was making was that we still have no idea why Key lost confidence in Worth. He has kept it secret. There should be openness about government, and Key should live up to his campaign pledge to enforce higher standards on his ministers. (Once again he’s failed to do this by allowing his ministers to rake in massive rent subsidies – Heatley alone gets $80,000 per year on top of his already hefty pay packet- out of touch with the average kiwi much??)

If my memory is correct it was Phil GOFF together with Immigration Minister Damian O’Connor who were graciously hosted by FIELD at his mansion in Samoa while the Thai tiler was slaving there, indeed that information first came from the tiler. It is inconceivable that O’Connor and Goff were un-aware of the circumstances of the Tiler….GOFF has chosen his words carefully.

GOFF:::“The verdict is an indication that whatever you are in society you are equal under the law … the law has followed its course.”

No you are not, and no it hasn’t, there are too many guilty parties the law hasn’t followed like himself….If FIELD was to come clean on the affair through his lawyer to the Police he could expect some mitigating concessions to be made at sentencing.

JOHN KEY…is reported stating words to effect that this was a unique and isolated offence……..No it isn’t ,there is still the matter of an international multi million dollar chinese criminal who one CUNLIFFE is reported to have confirmed his citizenship in direct contradiction to the Immigration Department who pointed out that he was wanted in several countries.Then there was the subsequent action of Dover SAMUELS in arranging a personal naturalisation ceremony for said criminal at Parliament no less. Surely these actions rival those of Field in integrity.

The Police also don’t emerge with the kudos they are claiming over this matter. They sat on it and did nothing even after it had been officially referred to them to such an extent that the Tiler had been removed from Samoa penniless back to Thailand prior to them even considering interviewing him.

The Police have recently with some justification been obliged to sign up to a formal code of conduct, I don’t know whats in it, but it seems to me there is an even greater need for Cabinet Ministers to have to do likewise.

“I think Mr Goff would get a lot of kudos if he expressed contrition in that way.”

Tim, marks for contrition come from actually BEING contrite. History demonstrates that the great seagull says whatever it takes. After Lange’s gummint got the heave he was “contrite” about the economic direction it took after a weekend hugga mugga fest. After Klerk’s gummint he was “contrite” about “some things”.

But he didn’t seem too concerned about stealing taxpayer money, legitimising the theft, having anything to do with Peters, the lies about ACC, the train set … blah blah blah … shafting fundamental constitutional and property rights without a mandate … Owen Glenn … the grotesque slug Williams …

There is a pattern here Tim in case you haven’t noticed. Rape, pillage, plunder, gouge, rort, steal, collude, lie or do what you like when you’re in. Be “contrite” when you get the arse. It doesn’t wash. It won’t wash. That seagull will not ever change its spots (so to speak).