September 23rd, 2010 at 7:13 pm by David Farrar
Tags:
ACT,
Chris Carter,
David Garrett,
Labour
This entry was posted on Thursday, September 23rd, 2010 at 7:13 pm and is filed under NZ Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
September 23rd, 2010 at 7:18 pm
Gold.
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 7:18 pm
Besides Carter knowing ALL the dirt about Labour?
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 7:22 pm
Did Aunty Helen tell Wris to say that?
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Just shows there is light and day between these two, and it really should be Carter walking the plank. I truely feel sorry for Garrett who made a mistake 26 years ago and wasn’t even an MP at the time. Changed his life around to do some good and this is how he gets treated. Seems we aren’t allowed second chances in life anymore.
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 7:50 pm
Yes. That is why Labour must expel him.
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 7:57 pm
DG should announce that he is gay and that’s why he is being picked on.
Vote:What Garrett did all those days ago bordered on insane .. the punch up in Tonga is no worse that Daffy Mallards childish brain explosion BUT he (Garrett) did fall on his sword so conversation over. Now Carter, well what a self serving egotistical prat .. leave man, just leave.
September 23rd, 2010 at 8:03 pm
[Gwilly 7:47 pm] Au contraire. If you’re a Socialist, you get multiple chances.
cheers
David Prosser
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 8:06 pm
But the question should be asked – why was Garrett treated this way for something he did 26 years ago, which the Court has already dealt with, and he wasn’t an MP at the time? Something is amiss with today’s society. I have a great deal of admiration for someone who had the guts to look into the mirror, and decide to turn their life around and contribute productively to society. At least he can leave parliament with a major achievement, more than most MP’s can ever boast of. Being a minority party makes this even more significant and noteworthy. The irony of course is that he has made NZ a safer place. Thanks for nothing!
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Gwilly suggests:
Geez, I ate that baby 26 years ago! Gimme a break!
Gotta love that logic. As for “doing good”, well that’s definitely a matter of perspective.
Having said that, when exposed for what he truly was he had the sense to resign. That suggests that at least he wasn’t addicted to the baubles off office, as Carter clearly is. Time to go cold turkey, trougher.
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 8:11 pm
Garrett is beyond sympathy he at least recognises that, you are a fool Gwilly Garrett was 26 I think I read that book at about 16 my first reaction was not to go and steal a dead childs idenity. Garrett I suspect has little regret other than he has lost his job the most you can say for him is he recognises reality.
Carter is just beyond reality and he doesn’t recognise that. Garrett’s crime was at the end of the day far the worse that he has walked restores some dignity to the man. Carter on the other hand will retire with a pension of about $1200 per week that is more than I earn but he is playing for higher stakes and that should be denied him. He is not fit for a post parliamentary career.
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 8:19 pm
@IHStewart – no one is denying that it was a stupid thing to do, Garrett himself even said that, but something is wrong with a society that feels the need to forever punish someone who has clearly turned their life around. And there are plenty of people who have done silly things in their youth, but that doesn’t mean they will not go onto becoming good and productive citizens. This was just a gang-up on ACT by a left-wing media, plain and simple.
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 8:24 pm
Carter, Ah………… the “entitlement force” is strong in this one.
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 8:28 pm
“Carter on the other hand will retire with a pension of about $1200 per week…”
Really? For the rest of his miserable, execrable life? For what? Sucking up to Hulun?
After all, what else did he do?
Can anyone, anyone at all, list any lasting, actual, positive achievements?
Hope you’re reading this Chris.
You’re not worth 12c p.w. out of OUR taxes mate, let alone that.
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 8:40 pm
ssb: I LOLed
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Carter could have been a path finder but now he is just a miserable small man chasing all the perks he can find in the parliamentary system. And there are plenty. But he has had one effect, as he abuses one perk it gets shut down so he abuses another. In his own miserable way he is cleaning out the house. A little little man of no consequence.
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 8:48 pm
Yes, quite a difference. One man stole the identity of a baby and then got name suppression while banging on about law and order, and was then bullied by his party leader (who was complicit in the original cover-up) to resign.
The other man didn’t commit any criminal offences.
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 8:57 pm
How would you know?
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Not that he could be charged with. Thieving prick
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 9:10 pm
Is it because I is Gay? Innit.
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 9:12 pm
“Carter could have been a path finder…”
No he couldn’t. He’s not a leader, never has been, not once, ever.
He’s a follower, always has been, always will be.
Why the fuck d’ya think he did what he did? Sacrificed his own career on the alter.
Why else but because others convinced this apparently (to all intent and purpose) pathetic little man, that he could roar.
Either that or he’s thicker than the village idiot who’s just won the decennial prize for being ‘thick as a whale omelet’ for the third straight time, thus establishing the world record in village idiocy, a highly-valued prize amongst those in that fraternity.
I personally wouldn’t follow him off the deck of the Titanic if he happened to be the captain of the last waiting lifeboat, even if all I had to do was step into it at water level.
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 9:19 pm
“But the question should be asked – why was Garrett treated this way for something he did 26 years ago”
In some ways I agree. But what hypocrisy from some on the right. Conservatives weren’t necessarily peddling the line above when Tanczos was putting through his Clean Slate Bill a few years back, and certainly not the Sensible Sentencing Trust.
Agreed SBY, there is quite a difference between what Garrett did and what Carter did.
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Nobody stole the identity of a baby; he copied the identity of a baby. We need to get rid of Garret and Winston ’cause they say embarassing things that the left and right agree on issues such as foreskin and seabed and immigration (which is needed to downgrade kiwi accommodation).
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 9:57 pm
It’s not just what he did 26 years ago. It’s about the fact that he kept it and the Tongan conviction from the public and lied to a judge about it. He could have never been Law and Ordeer spokesman if that would have been public knowledge. He probably would have never made it into parlaiment had it been known. All that happened just in the last years and not 26 years ago.
The only thing amiss is that you are still finding excuses for Garrett’s dishonesty.
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 9:58 pm
Prove otherwise.
Vote:Garrett’s offences were proven in court
September 23rd, 2010 at 10:03 pm
“others convinced this apparently (to all intent and purpose) pathetic little man, that he could roar.”
Hmmm….Keith Murdoch Syndrome.
Set up and shamed.
In Garrets sense, Honourable MP means fully honourable. We should expect no less.
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 10:14 pm
Garret is akin to lying on your CV. Resigning was the best path for him. He’ll still have other employment options, though perhaps not as a lawyer. Carter has nothing near as cushy as this job to fall back on. They’ll probably have to drag him out by his feet.
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 11:11 pm
22 September 2010: “I’ve been saying all along that I was sure David would resign from Parliament.”
**What a difference**
15 September 2010: “This, along with the Tongan assault conviction, seriously undermines Garrett’s ability to continue as law and order spokesperson. I’d put Heather into that portfolio, and move Garrett into other areas where he has a strong background such as industrial relations.”
Spinning out of control, DPF?
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 11:18 pm
With Chris Carter there to remind everyone what Socialists are really all about. Control freakery, nasty vindictive tactics, useless Governance, Squandering resources and talent on a breathless drive to entrap a client state.
With Phil Goff (My personal hero), there to whinge, whine, creep and talk general useless crap about the Politics of envy.
Labour look doomed to remain in the Wilderness for the duration.
Fucking delicious. And if David ‘I run the show’ Cunliffe gets to be the main man. It will just get even better. Just Magic.
As for Garrett. Is there a Lawyer that is actually clean and trustworthy? It really is quite depressing.
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 11:22 pm
One is saying what he’d do as party leader. The other is saying what he thought David Garrett would do. Two different things.
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 11:24 pm
Is the difference that one was a list MP with a mandate from their party, and the other is an electorate MP with a mandate from voters in his constituency?
Vote:September 23rd, 2010 at 11:31 pm
Duplicitous socialists, it’s OK when we do it. Babies the whole bloody lot of them, they spend their lives being apologists for the most appallingly low ethics and lack of transparency then demand it from their opposition. They need to grow up and take the consequences for their actions rather than pulling on Auntie’s apron strings for advice while blubbering ‘it’s not fair he did it too’.
Garret, two very stupid mistakes. The fake passport debacle and entering politics thinking it wouldn’t come out and bite his ass. I don’t think it’s likely he forgot about the charge in Tonga when he said ‘no prior convictions’ but what would Auntie say if he were a Labour MP and he claimed that: ‘I need to take the honourable member on his word….
Vote:September 24th, 2010 at 12:59 am
I hate Carter with a passion but there are differences between the two:
- Carter has not received a conviction… Twice… (or should that be yet?)
- Carter won an electorate
- The people of Te Atatu seem to genuinely support him and want him to stay on (for some unknown reason)
Respect to Garrett for leaving even though I thought him a crass piece of work…
Vote:September 24th, 2010 at 3:39 am
just casually…I bet if Labour did somehow get through at the next election they’d give Mr Carter his old portfolios for the vote gurantee…if they got back in it’d be 10x worse than the aussie situation…
Vote:September 24th, 2010 at 7:04 am
Garrett took two weeks leave, came back early, resolved his situation (similar to Roy with a less clear resolution).
In comparison Carter took two months leave ( determining that you need two months leave for “stress” in advance of taking it is farcical), stays away for all of that time to the last minute, then returns sounding off exactly the same as when he left. Maximum abuse of employment privileges (that are far too lenient), no resolution.
I see a marked difference. Act and Parliament have been cured of Garrett, Labour’s virus remains the same.
Vote:September 24th, 2010 at 8:17 am
That’s what I thought. Of course you can say that a lot of people probably voted for Carter because he was Labour, but that’s pretty hard to prove.
Vote:September 24th, 2010 at 8:36 am
Good riddance to a truly unsavoury individual.
Vote:September 24th, 2010 at 8:48 am
It’s not just what he did 26 years ago. It’s about the fact that he kept it and the Tongan conviction from the public and lied to a judge about it.
Exactly. He essentially committed perjury, and he did it only a few years ago – not 26.
Vote:September 24th, 2010 at 9:09 am
Clark He essentially committed fraud.
The only thing Garrett has been convicted of is assault in Tonga.
Vote:September 24th, 2010 at 9:13 am
The police didn’t view it as fraud.
Vote:September 24th, 2010 at 9:36 am
Carter to dig his fingernails into the woodwork: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4162556/Carter-to-stay-even-if-thrown-out-of-party
Vote:September 24th, 2010 at 11:10 am
Yes, well, the point is that Carter was actually ELECTED by the voters in Te Atatu to represent them, wasn’t he? Thats the difference. Surely, DPF, you can grasp this, given your position as the foremost ‘political animal’ in the blogosphere!!!
Vote:September 24th, 2010 at 11:14 am
SYB 8.48 said (referring to Chris Carter) … “The other man didn’t commit any criminal offences”.
Well you sure got that 100% right … all the ‘stupid’ bugger did was tell the truth.
Vote:September 24th, 2010 at 11:36 am
There is a rather significant difference here which you conveniently ignore.
Carter has not broken the law and lied about it both to his party and potentially the Court itself. (Garretts non disclosure of his assault conviction when the court was dealing with the historical identity theft).
Carter is also an electorate MP.
Do not get my wrong here, Carter should go. He is of no use to his electorate given his blackballing by the labour caucus.
Vote:September 24th, 2010 at 11:38 am
The Carter and Roy situations are much more similar, apart from what they have done to resolve things (one gritted her teeth and kept her head done, the other seems to have done nothing) and how long it took them.
Vote:September 24th, 2010 at 11:57 am
Maybe because he lied about the conviction to the judge.
Otherwise he may not have gotten away with a discharge without conviction.
The lie itself is another serious issue, especially for a MP and and a lawyer. Especially when you claim to be held to a higher standard than everyone else.
Vote:September 24th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Carter should go, plain and simple. But lets be clear, Garrett went because he stole a dead kid’s identity and covered it up, and it appears may have lied to the court. Garrett could not have returned to parliament under any circumstances, such was the extent of the damage to his reputation. Carter, on the other hand, was extremely inept and silly, but not criminal or venal. Never the less, I agree that his actions since confirm his overblown sense of entitlement and narcissism, and his continued presence in parliament is an outrage.
Vote:September 24th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
eszett
Very serious indeed, look at what happened to Winston when he was caught telling porkies. The sting from the wet bus ticket slap on his hand was excessive…. Garrett has shown what MPs should do when caught out telling lies – is there even 1 lefrty MP who has ever just taken the consequences of their own actions without blubbering like a baby that they weren’t the only ones doing it and it’s not fair to single them out?
Vote:September 24th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
“stole a dead kid’s identity”
What emotive crap. He used a dead person’s name to obtain a false passport.
“but not criminal or venal.”
Of course not. He is a homosexual and a Progressive. How could it ever be.
Vote:September 24th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
If Garrett’s passport case wasn’t suppressed there would have been more of a chance of his omission (of prior charges) in court would have been noticed by someone. Name suppression helped cover the possible perjury, so Garrett would have known from experience that suppression could help criminals avoid conviction.
Vote:September 24th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Pete George
Labour party membership also appears to help criminals avoid conviction.
Vote:September 24th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
Redbaiter sorry mate but he stole a dead childs identity. It is a fact not emotive crap. It may have been 26 years ago but that does not excuse him. Then much more recently he lied to the court about an assault coviction to get discharged without conviction on the identity theft.
Vote: