Garrett’s conviction
September 14th, 2010 at 9:17 am by David FarrarThe Herald reports:
Act’s law and order spokesman, MP David Garrett, was convicted of assault in 2002 in Tonga, he confirmed last night.
Mr Garrett, who led the party’s “three strikes” policy on tougher sentencing for serious violent offences, has not publicly disclosed his conviction.
But Act leader Rodney Hide said Mr Garrett had disclosed it to him before he joined the Act list at No 5 for the 2008 election.
It was the right thing, to disclose it to the party. The issue is whether it should have been disclosed publicly.
Mr Garrett issued a statement giving his version of events after TV3′s Campbell Live last night revealed the conviction.
Mr Garrett, who worked as a lawyer in Tonga, said he was attacked outside a bar in Nuku’alofa by Dr Mapa Puloka, head of psychiatry at the local hospital.
Campbell Live claimed the altercation was over Dr Puloka’s former wife.
Mr Garrett said his own jaw had been broken in two places after he was attacked from behind.
He had returned to Middlemore in Auckland for treatment and then laid a complaint with the Tonga police. After Dr Puloka was charged with assault, he in turn laid a complaint of assault against Mr Garrett.
Mr Garrett denied the assault and produced two witnesses, the bar’s bouncers, at the trial but was convicted and fined $10.
He had immediately lodged an appeal and has yet to be given a reason as to why it has been delayed.
Dr Puloka was fined $100.
The fact Puloka’s fine was ten times greater than Garrett’s suggests he was the aggressor.
Many MPs have minor convictions but Mr Garrett’s non-disclosure is more relevant because crime is the primary focus of his parliamentary career.
If it was any other MP, then there would be little interest in a $10 fine. conviction. But considering the strong stand David has taken on law & order, it would have been wiser to reveal the conviction (and his side of the story) early on.
But that is the only criticism I would make. I don’t think it undermines the stance David has taken on law & order issues, and his commitment to tougher sentences.
Related posts:
- My thoughts on Garrett
- Sex conviction rate drops to 45%
- Way forward bleak for ACT
- An appalling discharge without conviction
September 14th, 2010 at 9:19 am
Strike one.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 9:26 am
Media beat-up of the year?
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 9:29 am
Oh no James this is clear evidence that all conservatives are evil and the entire Act party should be stood against a wall and hung by the moral elite of the left. Wait a few moments and they’ll all be here to tell us about it.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 9:31 am
Yes, a breathless media trying desperately to drum up some post-quake alarm.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 9:34 am
Garret probably [DPF: 20 demerits. Leave defamatory speculation out of this]
He is just one reason why Act will crash and burn at the next election.
And regardless of how big the fine was he was convicted of assault, no mention of self defense. But seriously, Garret’s view of longer sentences is a widely held view by most mainstream politicians because they are chasing poll numbers, in the mean time we have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world and our prison system is draining our economy and tax payer funds incredibly. Three strikes policy has filled American prisons up with marijuana users.
Our system is already filled up with personal drug users.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 9:35 am
Thanks Murray, I knew I was missing somewhere. I feel so much happier knowing the cream of our journalistic crop are there to dig up joke convictions from Tonga and catch out ministers telling not particularly funny jokes to builders. It not as it we’ve got anything important like, oh I don’t know, electoral fraud going on in our biggest city…
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 9:36 am
Struggling to get worked up about it…
nah, not going to happen.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 9:36 am
‘I don’t think it undermines the stance David has taken on law & order issues, and his commitment to tougher sentences.’
Is that the best you can do DPF?
Maybe in the alternative universe right wing bloggers live in that might be the case but if you wave the finger at others you have to make sure you are absolutely squeaky clean otherwise you are a HYPOCRITE.
Hell Garrett is only one more attempted coup away from being a minister.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 9:37 am
I’m just waiting for Trevor Mallard to comment on David Garrett’s assault conviction. That should be fun
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 9:38 am
Serious crimes, like when the fine is over $20, should be listed on the voting papers (maybe parking fines exempted), but trying to make a story out of trivia like this is a bit pathetic.
YesWeDid – none of us could claim to be squeaky clean.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 9:40 am
From the report he was hit from behind?
Therefore it was an assault?
because of the Dr’s former wife?
So Garrat was involved with her when she was the Dr’s wife or was she a former wife then?
Why was Garrat charged and why did he cop a fine?
Surely there will be evidence and statements and a judgement
Is the Tongan Justice system a mickey mouse bullshit story or is it that particular Magistrate?
Yes I agree Garret should have disclosed much much more.
Vote:Hide did ACT a disservice here.
Does it affect his standing in Parliament?
No
compared to Labours shenanigens it’s tiddly.
September 14th, 2010 at 9:41 am
$10???? Really? Whats the point?
Sounds like he was simply defending himself.
Vote:Even if he did actually beat someone up and had a conviction for it (which he does not, it seems), it doesnt make him a hypocrite…. it is more like a turkey voting for an early xmas isnt it?
September 14th, 2010 at 9:43 am
YWD the only alternative universe appears to be yours.
Ordinary Kiwis will say:- “Shit, eh? He got king hit from behind, had his jaw broken and then the king hitter’s mates got him charged with assault? Sound’s very very fishy to me. Remind me to never go to that particular shit hole in the Pacific.”
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 9:44 am
John Campbell was just about wetting himself with excitement. What a juicy scandal! The nation was agog!
Vote:Pathetic.
I am awaiting the new generation of saints and angels who will enter parliament in the future – all bland, bloodless and boring.
September 14th, 2010 at 9:46 am
Please expand. Should Hide have told Garrett to have made a public disclosure before the election?
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 9:47 am
Minister gets $10 fine in Tonga!
Stop.the.presses
This just redefines the word sad. good work John Campbell, I hear What Now is looking for a new presenter with the ability to communicate at an 8 year olds level. Go for it.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 9:50 am
So as this is a right wing politician he is ‘simply defending himself’, it’s all a ‘media beat up’, ‘no one is perfect’.
If this was a Green or Labour politician you would all be foaming at the mouth with outrage.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 9:50 am
If I were Rodney Hide being interviewed by John Campbell I would seriously think a Strike One would be worth it just to smack his smug face.
[DPF: 10 demerits. Please don't advocate smacking anyone non-consensually]
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 9:50 am
Well I think Garrett is a dickhead, but I like his 3 strikes initiative. As long as he’s not a recidivist violent offender, then he’s hardly a hypocrite either.
[And in other news, Dr Mapa Puloka is my new hero. Hope he landed some good hits.]
[DPF; Also 10 demerits. Unacceptable to praise violent assault - esp one that broke a jaw]
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 9:52 am
YesWeDid – NoWeWouldn’t.
If someone broke Russel Norman’s jaw and he defended himself I would applaud him.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 9:52 am
$10? Maybe he gave him a “Christine Carter Open Palmed King hit”?
Still, he’s obviously only a step away from becoming a mass murdering sociopath.
He should be given immediate counselling and some kind of a benefit.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 9:53 am
If it was an offence to be a dickhead the jails would be full and parliament empty.
As appealing a visual as that is I’m not sure its a workable option.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 9:53 am
Does Mr Garrett think a $10 fine is a suitable punishment for assault? If not, what should a convicted criminal face as punishment?
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 9:54 am
Campbell is a self confessed out to change the world activist leftie.
Garret would be prime target for the socialistas like him.
I’ve never voted ACT but I reckon Garret is good news. NZ needs more MPs like him,and we need more ball breaking tougher penalties against seriou offending.
What Garret did ain’t serious. Keep up the good work.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 9:54 am
Nominating yeshedid for crapweasle of the week. Second?
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 9:54 am
The man who struck David Garrett was really the head of psychiatry at the local hospital ?
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 9:54 am
This is about as fair as the past PM speeding nonsense – it sounds like neither were directly responsible for the incidents happening but get caught up in the media and political bashing.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 9:56 am
Bull fucking shit Pete. Anyone who has gotten within ten foot of a diplomatic convey knows the principle calls the shots. and if shes not invloved because she wasn’t driving why were three other people who were not driving charged?
Strop trying to rewrite history.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 10:17 am
I hope DPF does not mind me repeating my comment which I made in ‘general discussion’
I am no fan of David Garrett, but note that following the brawl in Tonga, he was fined $10 for assault and the other party $100. David has an appeal on the table in Tonga but but says he is having difficulties pressing it.
On what I have read, he seems to be the victim of the incident, suffering rather serious injuries. I would regard the matter as remaining ‘open’ until he can get his appeal heard.
In any event even if he were guilty, the culpability on his part seems no more than to warrant ‘wet bus ticket’ treatment (as reflected in the fine imposed), and should be considered no more seriously than say a speed camera ticket.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 10:30 am
Time for a full disclosure moment. I’d like to see a list of all interactions that MPs have had with the justice and law enforcement systems, including speeding fines and parking tickets. Because it would be hypocritical for an MP to legislate in favour of speed cameras, bicycle helmets, or driving alcohol limits if the MP had a speeding ticket 30 years ago.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 10:34 am
How much has been made of the numerous convictions or court appearances of Bradford, John Hatfield or any of the other commies and racists?
Another beat up by our left wing media all trying for jobs in the leader of the opposition office.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 10:56 am
I saw Campbell try and make this out to be bigger than the quake news last night and thought it was just pathetic. Actually Rodney made a good point about parliament being a “House of Representatives”. Guess if it was a “House of Saints” there would only be a bunch of newsreaders and journalists in there.
Vote:Actually more I think of it that’ll be the last time I watch Campbell Live. Changed from the other show with the Walrus because it was too tabloid so I guess I’ll have to watch WWTBAM while I’m rowing the lounge dinghy.
September 14th, 2010 at 10:57 am
I find the timing quite remarkable since David Garrett was the only outspoken mp against the new foreshore and seabed legislation and his interview on the radio yesterday why he is against this legislation. Also, his bill was voted out in minutes about the repeal of the anti-smacking law which did show out of touch Parliament is when 1.2 million voters voted to have the act repealed. Today is the first reading of the foreshore and seabed legislation. Is this a coincidence? I think National had a hand in this article as well.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 11:07 am
Ladies and gentlemen behold the wonderful world of NZ politics. Why do we even waste our time discussing this trivial rubbish. The real issue is we have a dog of an economy rapidly heading south, a dopey National government that seems more keen on appeasing the lefties (and some Maori) rather than adress the real issues. We need real leader of the ilk of Douglas-people that actually understand economics.
Vote:In the mean time we are caught up with petty and silly discussions about nothing. Do you not think the Left would dredge dirt from anywhere to destabilise the current government. That is their way-they have nothing constructive to add so they sling dirt. And if they can’t stich up National…well ACT provides such fertile ground.
September 14th, 2010 at 11:11 am
[DPF: 10 demerits. Please don't advocate smacking anyone non-consensually]
Male, early 40′s seeks female half his age for consensual smacking.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 11:15 am
I’m not exactly Garret’s biggest fan – but this screams media beat up.
Have family who live in the islands(Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea etc) and have been “convicted” of numerous things like this. Typically its a revenue (read bribe) gathering exercise with no actual crime commited. Its far easier to pay the nominal fine, and get on with life than waste ones time in a corrupt legal system fighting it.
One has to wonder where abouts in ACT this particular leak came from.
Personally I think Rodney tore campbell a new one last night on the Telly.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 11:18 am
[DPF: 10 demerits. Please don't advocate smacking anyone non-consensually]
How do you know it wouldn’t be consensual?
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 11:26 am
It’s not just the world of politics, it’s the world of media and politics. Politicians are too busy trying to use and avoid being abused by media coverage. And the media is obsessed by ratings and are too scared to do anything different in case the other opposition doesn’t follow suit and they drop a few points.
Pressure needs to be applied to the media by people (the market) to act far more responsibly and reasonably.
Pressure needs to be applied to the media by people (the voters) to act far more responsibly and reasonably.
They might respond to an independent rating system, it would be easy to do something like this on the Net. It would have to be protected from manipulation, so maybe a rolling cross sectional group poll sort of thing.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 11:33 am
Hypocrisy meet ACT, ACT meet hypocrisy.
The weirdest part is the victim’s job.
There has to be a story in there somewhere as to why a Dr, let alone one who is the head of a department would go around whacking people.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 11:54 am
Surely this is not a serious musing?
Someone wants to embarrass Hide and/or Garrett. No prizes for guessing who.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 11:59 am
kowtow Campbell is a self confessed out to change the world activist leftie…
And Garret is a self-confessed activist rightie out to get “tough on crime”, especially violent offenders.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
@Radman – that was my point.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Guyon Espiner on TV1”s Breakfast described the latest scandal to rock ACT as the death rattles of a divided party.
Vote:ACT’S self confessed hard line law and order spokesman MP David Garrett has been revealed as a hypocrite following his admission of an assault conviction in Tonga in 2002.
This latest scandal to rock ACT’s political credibility comes on the back of allegations of bullying within ACT’s caucus that led to Heather Roy’s dumping as deputy leader.
ACT leader Rodney Hide also faces criticism for his stewardship of Auckland Super City executive appointments, which were conducted privately behind closed doors without any public consultation.
With ACT’s electoral support falling below 2% ( 1.3% ) in latest polling, Guyon Espiners prediction that ACT won’t make the cut in the 2011 election may well prove to be correct.
September 14th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
the really sad thing here is not that 2 men had a disagreement over a woman, god knows it’s been happening since Eve took her first breathe, but more the fact that after the testorone level has settled & they’ve both awoken in a more sober state they’ve both attempted to press charges against the other tit for tat.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Pete George
Hurry hurry or I’ll miss the rugby…. Did Garrett say; Hit me from behind and get me charged with assault ?
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
“the really sad thing here is not that 2 men had a disagreement over a woman, god knows it’s been happening since Eve took her first breathe,”
Haha
thank about that one for a second…….
its about as funny as the guy who said to some reporter that “group sex has been happening since Adam and Eve”
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
No Burt, it was probably more like “bugger, I’m supposed to be at that bloody rugby game, see if we can get there” and left it up to those who deal with driving escorts. Nothing has been proven otherwise, and she wasn’t driving any of the cars. We could speculate all we like about what happened in Tonga but even if Garret was guilty of a slight indiscretion it is insignificant.
If you take the media line on this I shouldn’t be able to tell anyone it’s not good to get pissed out of your tree because I have been, some time in my past. Ex smokers wouldn’t be able to warn against coughing up crap every morning. Etc etc.
Hide is right on this, parliament is better to be representative of ordinary people, all with pasts. The key thing is that they learn from their experiences and not keep repeating faults. Garrett, Mallard, whoever, it’s what they do after mistakes that’s most important.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Pete George
Do a google as follows; “hurry hurry or I’ll miss the rugby site:www.kiwiblog.co.nz” then tell me if you think it’s a coincidence I used that phrase again and again over several years
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
I don’t know about that edhunter – if someone smacks me from behind and breaks my jaw, I’m pressing charges the next day.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Chuck
Rodney knew Garret was going to be hard arse on crime and punishment and he knew of a factor that could be used against him and ACT.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
The unbiased media trying to smear opponents of the the evil little act that is the seabed and foreclosure
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
So Garrett gets assulted from behind,has his jaw broken,has witnesses to back him up and hes somehow supposed to be to blame and this spellls the death nell for ACT how exactly…? I personally think Garrett will get some Mana from this…real Kiwis know when someones on the level and three strikes has been a winner with Mr and Mrs NZ so yah boo sucks lefties for a pathetic beat up that will come back to bite you.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
time TV3 sacked Cambell. He is a loser first class. Boib Jones belted a reporter on camera and we all laughed and thought it was deserved. Wouldn’t have balmed Hide if he had done the same last night. Time we had some reporters with brain power rather than stars in their eyes.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Is John Campbell the most biased reporter on TV or what?
Vote:When did you last see a shocking expose of a left-wing figure on the John Campbell show?
John Campbell, to the left of Helen Clark, to the left of the Labour Party, all left-wing, all of the time.
September 14th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
burt says “tell me if you think it’s a coincidence I used that phrase again and again over several years
No burt, but it shows what a strange man you must be.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Would be interesting to see what Campbell said about Mallard’s quick with his fists antics. I bet he played the ‘just a little slip’ angle in defense of his precious red team thugs.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
“You punch me, I punch back. I do not believe it’s good for one’s self-respect to be a punching bag,”
Vote:Edward Koch.
September 14th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Mike, it is always easy to be wise in hindsight. Hide took a risk that someone would not leak this. The conviction was minor. Tonga has a corrupt justice system. Just look at the ferry sinking. Will anyone be held accountable and if so will it be the right people?
Most reasonable will see this for what it is – nothing.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
unaha-closp asks:
That’s the relevant question here, surely? As it happens I don’t think Garrett should even have been charged if the facts are correct – he acted in self defence. But to Garrett, McVicar and their ilk everyone convicted is a thug – no ifs, buts or maybes. They all deserve longer sentences. Even if their crime was only tagging, well too bad if they’re killed, Garrett and McVicar will be on the telly weeping for the killer.
So if we’re going to be so uncompromising as to never weigh the mitigating factors in a case, then Garrett should apply the same standards to himself. Never mind that he may have been justified in his actions. Never mind that the conviction may be dodgy. To remain consistent he must set aside all such considerations in his own case and answer unaha-closp’s question: Is a $10 fine for a “violent thug”, found guilty of assault, an adequate punishment? Hmmm?
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
So, Rex, should he trot back to Tonga and beg to be punished further for this extremely serious crime committed 8 years ago in a tin-pot little country run by men renowned for their peaceable natures.
Vote:I think some people need to find out what hypocrisy actually means.
And it’s time we had a real political scandal again – come back Winston.
September 14th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
To remain consistent he must set aside all such considerations in his own case and answer unaha-closp’s question: Is a $10 fine for a “violent thug”, found guilty of assault, an adequate punishment? Hmmm?
Its Tonga…Garretts a Kiwi living here…hes broken no law here or from the evidence so far any real law in Tonga….so who cares?
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
BeaB / James:
You’ve either missed the point or being deliberately disingenuous. I’ve said that, based on the facts as presented here by DPF, I think Garrett was wrongfully arrested and certainly wrongfully convicted. I don’t think anyone in those circumstances should vounteer for extra punishment, or indeed receive any punishment at all.
OTOH Garrett, in calling for longer sentences and effective life sentences (for third strikes), and condoning prison rape as something you should accept as par for the course if you end up in jail, makes no allowances for individual circumstances. In his worldview, everyone convicted is convicted justifiably, and invariably deserves more punishment than the courts handed out.
Who cares? Garrett would care, if it wasn’t him – and that’s the sole point at issue. By his standards, not mine, he is a thug who’s guilty of a violent offence. An offence for which he was fined $10. So does he think that’s an adequate punishment? And if so, will he now start advocating for similar penalties here?
And as for the “it was in Tonga” excuse – so what?! We have laws to convict people who travel overseas, where laws are much slacker, to molest children. Are we saying now that committing an offence is okay provided it’s not done in NZ?
Care to elaborate, BeaB? Because that reads awfully like a very nasty piece of racial profiling dressed up as sarcasm.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
***As it happens I don’t think Garrett should even have been charged if the facts are correct – he acted in self defence. But to Garrett, McVicar and their ilk everyone convicted is a thug ***
Bullsh1t.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Garrett’s Parliamentary History:
*too much alcohol*
*lewd comments*
*broken jaw*
Coincidence – yeah right.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Bob R says:
Wow, with such a reasoned and fact-packed rebuttal I’m almost embarrassed to ask for a citation. One will do. Any time Garrett and McVicar have said a sentence was too harsh [excluding, of course, one where middle aged white men with anger problems and personality deficiences go about chasing and stabbing to death brown teenagers]. Just one will do, Bob, just one…
I’d just about settle for an example where they said “fair enough, that’s reasonable” about a sentence. But given the propensity of the courts to occasionally hand out off-the-scale sentences (both far too light and far too harsh) there’s probably such a comment out there about one of the far-too-harsh ones.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Rex, are you 100% sure you know all the facts of the case? I do not but the fact that the taggers choose not to outrun Emery who was overweight indicates they may have chose to confront him. He claimed he was sprayed in the eyes. In any case this is getting a way off topic. The issue is should a minor conviction in a country riddled with corruption affect David Garrett’s ability to do his job? I think not. You may not like him for a variety of reasons but that is not the issue.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
***Any time Garrett and McVicar have said a sentence was too harsh ***
You said that they consider “everyone convicted is a thug no ifs, buts or maybes.” This was meant to suggest that excusing Garrett’s alleged self defence made them hypocrites. However, it’s pretty clear that McVicar & co are sympathetic to people acting in self defence (aside from the Emery case). Consider his comments in relation to storekeepers and organising Greg King to represent Virender Singh.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
“I think the law is causing considerable confusion and I think what will ultimately happen is that people will hesitate before they defend themselves and we will see innocent people dying.”
It is a very difficult thing to not be “vague” because every situation and every mix of people will be different. There could be as much chance of a shop owner over-reacting and someone innocent dies as well. Like taggers.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Chuck Bird says:
And I agree. The secondary issue is whether, by not extending to others* the same consideration of the whole picture that led to a conviction as he would like (and deserves) for himself before shrieking for harsher sentencing, is he a hypocrite of the highest order? I say yes.
* other than those who’ve harmed another offender, which seems to make it okay. In Singh’s case it seems it is; in Emery’s it’s highly questionable. To me, that doesn’t seem to matter to McVicar and Garrett, who see only a vigilante they want to encourage, not a victim they want to help.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
So Mallard throws a punch and gets told to say sorry, Garrett gets hit from behind and gets a conviction. The benefits of being a Labour party MP laid bare for all to see.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
Garrett’s has the same attitude to stopping violent crime as Rodney Hide does to perk busting.
Vote:September 14th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
TristanB, fark you must be desperate to connect this to something. How can a victim of violent crime be the one who is guilty? How could you twist it so badly? Are you that stupid?
Vote:September 15th, 2010 at 9:57 am
Garrett may have told Hide before the election but neither of them advised the ACT Board.
Vote:September 15th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Hey Heine, what kind of fuckwit steals a dead kiddies identity?
Vote:Fucking scumbag
September 15th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
Hey Heine, what kind of fuckwit steals a dead kiddies identity?
Fucking scumbag
If done to actually use and profit from then yes…no question.But done as an experiment to see if its actually possible and never actually used….still not a good thing but not even close to the former example.
Vote:September 15th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
I am really sorry to have to admit it, but if I were to continue to vote for Act, and if they are going to retain a shred of credibility, Garrett has to go.
Rodney-perk-buster-Hide proved a hypocrite, it was bad enough that he wiggled out of his dubious spending and use of ‘perks’, but I suppose politically expedient as he held the seat that retains their place in parliament.
And now Garret proves a hypocrite, and I am referring more to the passport issue.
I am dumbfounded at how stupid he could be by not revealing this previously, it was always going to get out, and he is now in a lose/lose situation.
ACT is supposedly a party of responsibility, to date taking personal responsibility for ones actions has been something that eluded it’s MP’s, this has to stop, now, here… Garrett should to the morally right thing and resign.
Vote:September 15th, 2010 at 6:05 pm
Garret is proving to be as hypocritical as his leader Hide, the perk buster who was into the tough as soon as it was made available to him. For all Act supporters who are shooting the messenger here, Garret has held himself aloft like the evangalists with his message of getting tough on crime. Now he is claiming to be the victim when the skeletons come out of the closet. It is extreme political naivity to even hope that these past dialiances with the the law wern’t going to come out of the clauset and kick. Identity Theft and assualt no matter how justifyable they may be in his own mind or the mind of his leader don’t build very good picture of this mans character. As for Hide now conceding that Garrett had disclosed the issue to him prior to the election so hide is affectively now telling us that he chose to conspire with Garrett to conceal the issue from the public. I cant really tell from that who is the bigger muppet.
Frankly if Garret was a man who lived by his convictions he would resign tomorrow. Cant see it but given the self destructive tendencies of Act under Hides leadership I suspect the voting public will sack him soon enough.
Vote:September 15th, 2010 at 6:14 pm
Rex
I guess Garret is fair game for you and the rest of the criminal cuddlers but you do yourself no favours by attacking McVicar.
Basically all McVicar wants is to keep our streets safe from the low life criminal scum who you love to defend, given the choice of being safe or trying the sort of stupid ideas you come up with I know what the majority of people would vote for.
Thank goodness Laws got shot of you.
Vote: