Lying lowlife

September 3rd, 2010 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

A couple of days ago it was reported that Lisa-Marie Thompson, who owned the number plate “ARYAN1″:

She said she had no idea what “Aryan” meant and the apparent nod to Adolf Hitler’s “master” race actually referred to her former boyfriend – Andrew Ryan.

I was a bit suspicious of this claim, and so was the Dominion Post who did some nice investigating:

A woman who claims that her personalised licence plate “ARYAN1″ is the initial and surname of a former boyfriend has links to white supremacist groups and is backed by the National Front.

Upper Hutt mother Lisa Marie Thompson – who has references to neo-Nazi white-power organisation Blood & Honour on a personal webpage – has denied being racist.

The Facebook page of the body piercer, seamstress and mother of three includes “friends” posing before swastika flags and claiming allegiance to “white nationalist” skinhead groups such as Crew 38 and Hammerskin Nation.

And final proof:

An Upper Hutt woman said she had trespassed Ms Thompson from her home and a former workplace because of concerns about her behaviour.

“Once she was yelling out, `You’re a nigger – dirty abo.’

“She’s always hassling me, at work, at home. I’ve called the police on her multiple times.

“She knows exactly what `Aryan’ means. She’s the most racist person I know.”

A former boyfriend said Ms Thompson – who works part-time at an Upper Hutt tattoo parlour – was prejudiced against “everyone who’s not really her kind”.

Her kind being bigoted lowlife. I feel very sorry for her kids. Growing up with a mother who hates, can warp you. On the other hand, sometimes it will push them in the other direction – they’ll be determined not to end up like the mother.

Tags: , , , ,

Lies from Labour

August 14th, 2010 at 1:16 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports on desperate lies from Labour – and paid for by the taxpayer:

Labour is defending information it published in pamphlets being distributed nation-wide which compare household costs with and without a 15 per cent GST.

The taxpayer-funded pamphlets, of which there are hundreds of thousands, zone in on the impacts the Government’s policies are having on public services and the income and spending power of New Zealanders.

The pamphlets include a basic statistics column citing an example of a monthly power bill figure of $189.34, saying “plus National’s 15 per cent GST” of $28.40 it will increase the bill to $217.74.

A desperate attempt to gain relevance, lacking in a skerrick of intellectual honesty.

National Party and Tukituki electorate MP Craig Foss this morning said the comparison as “misleading” and an apology and retraction was needed from Labour.

With GST having already having been introduced by Labour – and increased to 12.5 per cent – years before National came to power, trying to pass the increase off as 15 per cent when it was in fact going up 2.5 per cent from October 1 was not on, he said.

“They totally misrepresent the fact that GST is switching from 12.5 to 15 (per cent)…the fact that the taxpayer is funding these pamphlets makes it worse and I think the Labour Party owes New Zealand an apology and should issue a correction”, he told NZPA.

It would be like National putting out a pamphlet after Cullen’s rich prick tax increase, and saying:

* Your weekly income on $65,000 = $1,300
* Dr Cullen’s increased tax rates = $336
* Your income after Dr Cullen’s tax = $964

I suggest someone complain to the Advertising Standards Authority.

Tags: ,

Kees Keizer

November 6th, 2008 at 9:56 am by David Farrar

The NZ Herald has an interview with the secret taper – Mr Kees Keizer. He claims it was all a sort of spur of the moment thing. As Tui says yeah right.

Speaking publicly for the first time, Mr Keizer said he came up with the idea to tape MPs at the cocktail party before National’s August conference on the spur of the moment

Yes of course. You’re sitting around a Friday planning what to do for the weekend, and you think hey I’ll go a cocktail party of a party I despise and try and tape them all. Of course that was spur of the moment, and wow I just happened to have a tape recorder in my pocket.

Mr Keizer said he took a digital recorder and had “legitimately” entered the conference by paying for a ticket – although he would not say what name he used.

Which is admitting he purchased it under false pretences.

Once Mr Keizer was in, he said he used his real full name and said he was interested in joining the Young Nats.

Actually he said he was a Young National, according at least one person who talked to him.

Mr Keizer has drip-fed the tapes to TV3 political editor Duncan Garner and refused to comment when asked if there would be more before the election. Mr Garner has indicated there could be more.

And of course something you do on the spur of a moment as a prank, you leak selectively to TV3 by anonymous e-mail timing each one for maximum political damage.

Mr Keizer said he had not edited the recordings to change the context but rather to keep his voice secret. He refused to release the full recordings so this could be tested.

And this tells us all we need to know. Now that his identity is known, there is no reason for him not to release a full recording. And the ethics of any media organisation that runs a selective extract will beyond doubt be tested with the Broadcating Standards Authority.

It was one thing to accept partial recordings when the sender was anonymous and wanted to keep his identity secret. But there is no ethical reason why TV3 could accept a partial recording now his identity is known. Doing so would indicate partisan motives rather than journalistic ones.

He said while he had friends and connections in the Labour, including those on the Labour-affiliated website The Standard, he also had friends in National too.

The Standard is the website where a blogger calling himself Batman posted about John Key’s supposed links H-Fee. That blogger is believed to be a senior official, most likely party president Mike Williams, although he has denied it was him.

The chances that his mates at The Standard don’t know all about it are nil, and as many of them are ministerial and parliamentary staffers, you can be sure Labour knows exactly what is in the tapes.

“I’d like to just absolutely confirm that I’m not a member of any political party and I’ve not been put into this by any political party or organisation.”

Of course he was not put up to it. The thought that Helen sits on the 9th floor ordering such tapings is ridicolous. But look at what he has not denied – that he has kept Labour informed of what is in the tapes, so they can plan their campaign around them.

Mr Keizer said his complaint about the EMA advert – made just days before the cocktail party – was not linked to Labour, but rather that he “wanted to learn more about the Electoral Finance Act and saw this as an opportunity.”

Now if anything confirms Keizer as an unmitigated liar, it is this statement. He complained about the EMA advert as an opportunity to learn more about the EFA!!!

“What you heard was genuine, there was no editing specifically to have it so it was in misleading quotes.” …

Mr Keizer said he would not be releasing the entire tape.

“Most of it is useless. It wouldn’t do any credit to anyone.”

So if he is telling the truth, why wouldn’t he release the full tape to show the full answers and what he said to elecit those answers? There is only one logical reason.

Tags: , ,

Caught in another lie

November 3rd, 2008 at 7:10 am by David Farrar

As you read below that Winston has been caught in another lie, just remember that Helen Clark’s firm policy is that multiple and repeated lies to the public are no barrier to serving in her Government. The Herald reports:

NZ First leader Winston Peters says he did not use a helicopter for election campaigning – but the photographic evidence suggests otherwise.

Mr Peters has flatly denied using a helicopter to campaign, calling the suggestion “stupid”.

“Did you see me flying around in a helicopter? Who would try and campaign out of a helicopter?”

But the Herald has obtained a photographic sequence of a smiling Mr Peters posing before taking off from Gisborne Airport shortly before the 1999 election.

Even his lies are getting feeble.

Mr Peters’ denial followed a report he demanded the free use of a helicopter during the 1999 campaign from his wealthy backers in the Vela family.

The MP wanted to paint the helicopter in NZ First colours and fly it into rural areas, according to documents obtained by the Dominion-Post.

“Tell him [Philip Vela] to hire me an unmarked helicopter. So I can paint it black/white and NZ First. Then I can drop into small rural towns and schools,” he wrote in one.

“Tell those bastards I want a helicopter. Don’t give me this crap about the machine needing repairs.”

So this could be a good test case of how authentic those papers are. What was the actual helicopter used?

The helicopter in the Herald’s photographic sequence is black-and-white. It was registered to Philip Vela until June 1999, but had changed ownership to the Auckland office of Eurocopter by the time the photo was taken on the campaign trail that October/November.

Just a coincidence I am sure!

Well done to Gray Eatwell for keeping and supplying the photos. He stood for NZ First in 1999 and is standing as an Independent in Tauranga this year.

The Dom Post also covers this:

Winston Peters appeared to be posing a rhetorical question when he asked “have you seen me flying around in helicopters?”

The problem was that several people – including a Dominion Post journalist and a former political colleague – were happy to answer that they had seen just that.

Once again I stress, that Helen Clark is saying she has no problems working with Winston again. She is unconcerned that he is a serial liar. She is unconcerned that her Government’s decision making may be tainted by a cash for policy scandal. She just says it is nothing to do with her and if Winston makes it back she will have him as a Minister again.

Tags: , , , ,

The SFO outcome

October 11th, 2008 at 10:34 am by David Farrar

I am totally unsurprised by the outcome of the Serious Fraud Office inquiries into the Spencer Trust. And the outcome is in no way a clearance or an exoneration. What it says is laws have been broken, but not fraud laws.

NZ First’s failure to obey the electoral laws of New Zealand is what made the investigation occur. Because the public facts were that Bob Jones had stated he had made a $25,000 donation intended for NZ First, through the Spencer Trust, and the NZ First Party had filed a donations return saying it had not received any donations in 2005 of over $10,000. To quote the SFO:

There were two competing explanations for how this could be.

  1. The Spencer Trust never passed the money onto NZ First, which would be possibly fraudalant
  2. The Spencer Trust did pass the money onto NZ First, and NZ First filed a false electoral donations return

No 2 was always far more likely. And thanks to the SFO investigation we now know this is true. In fact we know that NZ First has filed a series of false returns, as has Winston Peters personally, and Peters has lied on multiple occassions about these returns, including giving false information to the Privileges Committee.

This is no case of an accidential omission on a return, due to Mrs Muggins the branch secretary. This was a strategy signed off by the Leader. Let us look at the multiple false returns and statements:

  1. A false donations return for 2005
  2. A false election expenses return for 2005
  3. A false donations return for 2007
  4. A false return on the Register of Pecuniary Interests for 2006 (Payment of debt to Bob Clarkson for Peters)
  5. A false return on the Register of Pecuniary Interest for 2006 (Payment of debt to David Carter for Peters)

Now these are not just mistakes or errors. Only because of the SFO investigation has this come to light. And it gets even worse. Most semi-honest people would, once they had been caught out, would at least reveal all. But no Peters does not.

He was instructed by the House of Representatives to file amended pecuniary interest returns for 2005, 2006 and 2007. And all he did was amend them to include the two donations that had already been publicly forced out (Owen Glenn and Spencer Trust for Clarkson) but he didn’t declare the $13,640.37 the Spencer Trust paid on his benhalf to David Carter in 2006. These are the actions (assuming Weekend Herald is correct) of a pathological liar, not a cleared man.

And on that issue, it sounds like Eye to Eye at 11.30 am on Sunday will be interesting watching as Matthew Hooton is on the panel with Peters as the guest. Quoting Roar Prawn:

TVNZ sources say that Willie Jackson’s Eye to Eye tomorrow will be one of the most fiery TV debating shows ever seen in New Zealand.

Winston fronted up to the Green Room, last night to tape the show that airs on 11.30 on Sunday on TVNZ, thinking he would be up for a cosy chat with his mates Barry Soper and Chris Trotter.

He was high on hearing that the SFO had dropped criminal charges, but he was less than impressed when he realised that Jackson had decided to replace Trotter with Matthew Hooton.

Hooton won’t talk about the encounter but BustedBlonde’s media sources say that Winston tried to bluff his way out of appearing with Hooton, . saying there was no way he was going to be with someone who called him a liar.

Before they even got on air, we understand Hooton then called him a liar, a crook and a lying c***t straight to his face.

Anyway, things didn’t get much better on air, and the air was so blue Jackson had to stop the pair at one stage and re- record the show.

Our sources say that Winston always wins these debates on points but Hooton had him on the ropes more than once refusing to kowtow to the liar (our words)

Our sources say it was one of the most brutal encounters they had ever witnessed on NZ television.

That is very typical of the mischievous Willie Jackson – invite Peters on and then have Hooton on also. Can’t wait to see it.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

More changes to Winston’s stories

September 21st, 2008 at 8:10 am by David Farrar

Audrey Young has a very useful blog entry analysing what Winston says now, and what he said before the truth came out.

As readers will know, Winston is outraged because the SFO passed on evidence to the Privleges Committee that proved Peters and Henry lied. In Winston’s world it is outraegous if law enforcement agencies expose his lies.

Audrey notes:

Peters confirmed that the Spencer Trust had reimbursed his lawyer Brian Henry the $40,000 Henry had personally paid for costs awarded against Peters in the Tauranga electoral petition, talking to drive-time host Larry Williams on Friday night:

This is quite crucial because if anyone but Peters paid that $40,000 debt then beyond doubt that had to be declared on the Register of Pecuniary Interests.

”Mr Henry paid the money initially. He was later reimbursed out of the trust account from the Spencer Trust funds. In that sense yes,” Peters said. ”But that was a trust to assist the New Zealand First Party and any actions it might take. What’s wrong with that?”

What is wrong is Winston failed to disclose this. Just as NZ First failed to disclose donations from the Spencer Trust.  This is not a series of one off “mistakes”.

The great service done by the SFO investigation has been to expose the failure of NZ First and Peters personally to disclose funding from the Spencer Trust. And in case anyone really thinks it was all a mistake – consider the fact that these “mistakes” only came to light due to the SFO. Peters did not at any stage move to correct on his own initiative his public statements. He only admits to something once law enforcement agencies pry it out of him.

It means that the information Peters gave in a speech on August 20 to supposedly “clarify” what had been said about the $40,000 at the privileges committee two days earlier was actually not true.

“Mr Henry paid the money [$40,000] to ensure the bill was paid in time – and he was later reimbursed by myself,” Peters told Grey Power in Upper Hutt.

“He checked his records yesterday and found this was indeed the case.”

A clarifying letter was sent to the privileges committee to that effect.

People should be very aware of this point. The lie which has been exposed by the SFO is not about what was said at Privileges Commitee in response to Russel Norman. Most people would accept that you could be mistaken when responding to an unexpected query on the spot.

But what we have here is Peters claiming two days later, in a formal speech, that he had “checked the records” and Peters had reimbursed Henry. And they were so certain of this info, they sent a letter to the Privileges Committee stating this.

Their claim and letter was false. The Prime Minister once again keeps Winston with his baubles of office despite the fact he has been exposed at deliberately deceiving the public and the Privileges Committee. This was no mistake made in the heat of the moment. It was a statement made two days later which they claimed was based on a check of records.

Peters’ admission about the reimbursement also raises questions about whether the $40,000 should have been declared to Parliament in 2007 in the Register of Pecuniary Interests.

There is no question that it should have been.

We now know the Spencer Trust was run by Winstons’ brother, law partner of his brother and a staff member in Winston’s office. And it paid personal bills on behalf of Peters. So Audrey reminds us of this press conference:

Q: Mr Peters are you seriously saying that people are meant to believe that you don’t know what the ST is used for?
A: Yes I do. You know why? Because those are the facts.
Q: We asked your brother yesterday and he wouldn’t answer the question.
A: Well Audrey you should show a bit of knowledge, experience and a bit of commonsense, right? Go and ask him again.
Q: Who should we ask?
A: You’re entitled to ask it all the questions you like.
Q: But you’re not answering them.
A: How can I answer them if I’m not in charge of the trust.
Q: Because you know what that trust is using the money for.
A: Sorry I don’t.
Q: Really?
A: Well I just said no I don’t.

And as you read what are really bare faced lies (unless you think Winston can somehow not know that the Spencer Trust paid a $40,000 debt on his behalf), remember once again that Helen Clark has no problems keeping Peters on.

Audrey also goes back to the original Privileges Committee hearing when Brian Henry lied and insisted he paid for it personally (you would know the difference between paying $40,000 out of your own pocket and temporarily paying $40,000 and getting reimbursed). He obviously did not want to admit the Spencer Trust effectively paid for it, so in response to an incredulous Wayne Mapp:

Mapp: Are you seriously suggesting that you would’ve paid $40,000 in court costs which were against Mr Peters and you advised Mr Peters of that fact, and that Mr Peters would not have understood that that would’ve effectively come out of the $100,000 – well the donations received?

Henry: Mr Mapp, I’m not ‘seriously’ saying it; I am saying it. I’m not suggesting it. I’m telling you exactly what I did…..So don’t slur it – this is what I did. I’d like to finish with Mr Mapp….Mr Mapp I am telling you what I did. So please do not slur it or belittle it by saying ‘Are you seriously suggesting….’ This is actually what I did. You mightn’t like it but that’s what I did.

Such outrage, all faked.

Whale Oil also blogs about further revelations from Spencer Trustee Grant Currie. On radio Currie said that they spent money on behalf of NZ First, after consulting with “someone” who was not a duly elected office holder of NZ First. That someone would be McClay on behalf of Peters I suspect.

You have to wonder if there is a single MP or office holder in NZ First with any spine? The party president didn’t even know of the Spencer Trust. Money meant for NZ First went into the trust, and then spent on behalf of the party bypassing the authority of the NZ First President and Board.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

What if Benson-Pope wins?

September 18th, 2008 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

The ODT reports that Benson-Pope may win Dunedin South:

The Otago Daily Times understands private polling being undertaken in the electorate shows Mr Benson-Pope would win in a canter should he decide to stand.

Now this may just be spin, or the ODT may have seen polling from a reliable company. Time will tell.

So what happens if David Benson-Pope wins. It depends on whether he stands for a registered political party or not. It is safe to assume he will not. He will stand as an Independent or for an unregistered party (such as Independent Labour).

This means we need to look at s191(8) of the Electoral Act 1993.

If any person whose name is endorsed on the writ pursuant to section 185 as a person declared to be elected as a member of Parliament, is an independent … the Chief Electoral Officer shall, for the purposes of applying subsection (7), deduct from the number of 120 the number of any such persons.

So there is no overhang. What it means is that the party which would have gained the 120th place in Parliament will lose that spot to Benson-Pope. There is roughly a 50/50 chance it would be National or Labour.

So Benson-Pope winning could end up giving the centre-left one extra seat at the expense of the centre-right. Or it could have no effect, with Benson-Pope just replacing a Labour MP.

Incidentally Claire Curran is No 45 on the Labour list, and will only come in Labour get more votes than in 2005. So Curran will miss out, if Benson-Pope do win.

I am no fan of David Benson-Pope, but to be fair to him he does have a legitimate reason to be aggrieved. Clark sacked Benson-Pope for telling just one lie, while Clark refuses to take any action against Winston despite Winston’s multiple lies.

Hat Tip: Homepaddock

Tags: , , , , , ,

So what really happened

September 18th, 2008 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

I blogged yesterday on what Winston claims happen. It is fit only as a bedtime story for five year olds, or the Prime Minister.

Today I am going to blog what I think actually happened, and how Winston created this trouble for himself. This is based on the evidence to date, and some guesswork.

He started off only being hypocritical, but in hiding that hypocrisy he eventually told a lie, and then to cover that lie up, he had to tell many many more. Here is my timeline of events:

  1. In August 2005 Peters asked for a meeting with Glenn. They met, and then his staffer Roger McClay asked for a donation to NZ First which was declined. It is fascinating that NZ First tried to solicit money from Labour’s largest donor prior to the 2005 election. One can speculate on why they thought this would be productive and whether this indicated they had already decided to back Labour, but that is not germane.
  2. In late November 2005 a staffer (probably Roger McClay) approached Glenn again for a donation to the petition. That staffer probably had the discussion with Glenn, that Henry claims he had. They do not want to reveal that it is probably Roger McClay as the thought of Winston not knowing the fundraising details of his own staff is even more unlikely than their other stories.
  3. In December 2005 Peters directly solicited a donation for the Tauranga electoral petition, pretty much the way Owen Glenn describes it with a phone call on 5 December, another call after that, and then the 14 December call. All the evidence supports this. The reason Glenn now said yes is because he saw it as helping Labour, and he checked with Mike Williams who said it would not be unhelpful.
  4. Peters obviously took the call from Glenn, and then told Henry to send the bank account details.
  5. The request to Glenn to keep the donation confidential was important. The NZ First brand was built on anti big business donations, and accepting $100,000 for legal expenses would weaken their brand.
  6. If Glenn had said yes to the original request to donate to NZ First, then that would have been paid to the Spencer Trust I am sure. It was vital that the public never know of the funding from big business. Peters and Henry had constructed things very carefully so they could avoid disclosure (arguably) legally. At this stage nothing has been done wrong, save the hypocrisy and maybe the failure to disclose on the Register of Interests (the way they structured it gives them an arguable case though).
  7. Then on 15 February 2008, Owen Glenn revealed he had donated to another political party (which is how he saw it). That got some minor interest in the media as to which other party.
  8. Even worse on 19 February 2008 he revealed he was in line to become Honorary Consul to Monaco, that Helen had already approved it, and he was just waiting for Winston to “get off his arse and do the paperwork”.
  9. At this point Peters would have realised it would be a bad look if the public realised Glenn had donated $100,000 to benefit Peters, and he was under consideration for Consul. Plus it undermines their no big donor brand. So he would be worried. But as long as Glenn kept the confidence it was al okay. Only Peters and Henry (and maybe McClay) knew of the donation. The media could guess but could not prove.
  10. But then disaster struck in the form of Dail Jones on 20 February 2008. He revealed to the media that there had been a large mystery donation to NZ First in December 2007 and that it was closer to $100,000 than $10,000. Owen Glenn also refused to rule out donating to NZ First, saying through his PR firm that people should speak to the party. This created huge media interest.
  11. Now people (including me) started adding 2+2 together to get 5, and thought the December 2007 donation was from Owen Glenn. Peters furiously denied it. Peters was right ironically.
  12. Peters was furious as the allegation was wrong. There were two secret donations – not one. And Dail Jones had accidentally come close to exposing both of them. The allegation that the Nov 2007 donation was from Owen Glenn was wrong, but to prove it wrong would have meant revealing the Spencer Trust. No wonder he was furious at Jones (to be fair to Jones he just told the truth and if you run a secret trust without your Party President in the loop, you run the risk he may blunder into it)
  13. Now again at this stage no lies had been told. It was all hypocritical but Peters denials had been correct.
  14. The next day Helen talks to Owen Glenn and he informs her of the donation. She rings Peters and he denies it to her. Now probably in Peters’ mind he did not lie, only deceive. He would have been careful to use language which ruled out a donation to the party or to him, but not to his legal fees.
  15. The fact he doesn’t contact Glenn to ask what this is about, is incidentially proof he obviously knew. If he did not know, he would have asked. Now again at this stage no major lie, just some deception.
  16. On 24 February he does another half lie denying there was any mystery donation at all. In fact there was – from the Spencer Trust. Peters probably justifies this because the Spencer Trust is not a mystery to him, and he knows the $80,000 was made up of individual Vela cheques of $10,000 into the trust, so in his mind there was no big anonymous donation.
  17. On 28 February 2008 we have the infamous “No” press conference. In hindsight this was a fatal mistake. By going so over the top, he cut off his wriggle room for later. He thought he was on safe ground denying Owen Glenn donated to NZ First, but he also said No to Guyon Espiner saying “Can I just clarify with you. Are you saying you have never received one dollar from Owen Glenn or any associate of Owen Glenn” and that was right on the edge of being a lie. The trouble with having a big No prop, is you can’t suddenly stop using it, so he waved the No sign again. A big mistake.
  18. Now at this stage Peters has not told a fully formed lie – many half lies, but he looks to have got away with his denials as no one asked exactly the right question. Again it is because Peters knew exactly what the donation was about, that he could so carefully deny it.
  19. Then in July 2008 someone leaked to Audrey Young the e-mails between Owen Glenn and Steve Fisher where Glenn says “Steve – are you saying I should deny giving a donation to NZ First?? When I did?”. She published these on 12 July 2008.
  20. Peters responds that Glenn did not donate to NZ First. This is technically true. Glenn referred to NZ First when he should have said Winston’s legal bills. Winston is a great nit picker and puts huge reliance on the difference. At this stage again no outright lie from Peters.
  21. But he again becomes his own worst enemy when on 14 July he attacks the NZ Herald can calls on Tim Murphy and Audrey Young to resign. He offers them a look at the party books. He does this because he knew the donation went into Brian Henry’s account. But he is most unfair in attacking the Herald. He knows that email is from Owen Glenn, and they reported it in good faith. It is not the Herald’s fault that Glenn used loose language around his donation. His attack is over the top and Peters at his worst. It is one thing to deny the accuracy of the e-mail by playing semantic games, but it is another thing to try and take the moral high ground as Peters did.
  22. On the 16th of July he again reassures Clark again there has been no donation to NZ First. Still not lying (but certainly deceiving) as the donation was to his legal fees.
  23. Around this time Peters and Henry would be terrified that Glenn will eventually speak to a journalist and reveal details of his donation.  The Herald also prints a further leaked letter from Glenn to Peters and they must wonder what else is still to emerge. I have little doubt phone records will show them in constant communication that week. So they decide to pre-empt it by announcing it on 18 July 2008.
  24. That day Peters’ mother dies. I do not think so badly of them that they choose to announce it that day because of her death. I think they had already decided on that day (Peters had been overseas and they wanted to do it when he was back in NZ) and decided to carry on, even after she died. That’s still pretty low though. With the NZF conference starting the next day they needed to get it out of the way.
  25. Peters and Henry had a big big choice ahead of them. Do they reveal that Peters knew of the donation? They could argue that he had never denied a donation to his legal fees. Technically he had never lied until then – only deceived. But Peters would know that having waved that no sign around at the press conference and called on the Herald staff to resign and apologise, he would get somewhat crucified if he revealed he was playing at semantics and he did know of a donation – but it was to his legal fees, not him or his party (as he saw it). Ironically in hindsight that would have been the path of less pain.
  26. So they made a fatal mistake. They told a bare faced lie. They both did. On 18 July 2008 they announced that Brian Henry only informed him of this at 5 pm that day. Peters explictly said that up until then he had been “unaware of the source of any of the donations for legal expenses”. That was the start of the end. Up until then they were only half lies, or deceptions (in politics there is a difference).
  27. They had to ten resort to further lies, to back up the big lie. How did Henry get in touch with Owen Glenn?  On 20 July they claimed a tip off from someone whose name Henry could not recall, but was not Peters or Mike Williams. Another deception which turned into a lie. They probably mean McClay, and he probably was involved at first but as the e-mails and phone calls prove Peters was in the loop the whole time. It was not a case of McClay or Peters knowing – they both did.
  28. Incidentially on 21 July the Vela donations came to light, but that is a story for another day.
  29. Peters lied again on 25 July when he said in a written statement “The Glenn contribution went to my barrister Brian Henry. As soon as I learned of it I informed the Prime Minister and alerted the media.” Once you tell one lie, you have to keep lying.
  30. Peters and Henry both lied again to the Privileges Committee on 19 August 2008, saying again he never knew of the donation. Note neither of them gave testimony under oath, so they can not be done for perjury.
  31. Henry also claimed on 19 August “I phoned Owen Glenn and he forwarded $100,000 which was paid to me on account of my fees”. This has been proven false. Glenn phoned Peters.
  32. Owen Glenn’s letter was published on 26 August 2008, along with one from Peters’ respomding to it. Peters again lies repeating that he had no knowledge of any donation.
  33. On 28 August Helen Clark reveals she knew back in February 2008 of the donation, from Owen Glenn.
  34. On 4 September another Glenn letter is published. He details the phone call and e-mail. Peter Williams tables a statement claiming Brian Henry spoke to Owen Glenn on two occassions.
  35. On 9 September Glenn testifies and provides proof of the phone call from him to Peters and the e-mail seven minutes later from Brian Henry.
  36. On 10 September, Peters testifies again. Peters admits to conversation with Glenn but denies money discussed.
  37. On 16 September Henry testified again. He admits that the client in the e-mail was Peters but still insists somehow Peters never knew of the donation. Phone records also prove Peters called Henry straight after the Glenn phone call.

I am pretty confident that this is close to what happened. It explains everything. Peters at first did not lie but he then realised he had gone too far in playing semantic games with the media to reveal he knew of a donation to his lawyer. So on 18 July he told a lie. And that one lie on 18 July led to dozens and dozens more lies as they tried to concoct a story about how Glenn could have donated without Peters knowing. I suspect they also exchanged conversations with McClay for conversations with Henry.

The moral of the story is the same as for Richard Nixon – it is the cover-up that gets you in the end!

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Dom Post exposes lie #287 from Peters

September 5th, 2008 at 7:24 am by David Farrar

Just for the sake of recording them all, the Dom Post reports:

Mr Currie said that as well as $80,000 in 2007 and $50,000 in 2005, the trust paid some NZ First bills.

“In 2005, there were two accounts that were paid on behalf of the party … probably in the region of, at a guess, $15,000 between them.” More than $10,000 in bills were paid in 2006.

When The Dominion Post asked Mr Peters in July if NZ First received money from a trust that sometimes paid party bills, he said through a spokesman: “It’s a lie.”

So many administrative errors and honest mistakes.

Tags: , , ,

Clark also damns Peters

August 28th, 2008 at 2:04 pm by David Farrar

Clark has damned herself with her revelation today. But she has halped damn Peters also.

Now only a moron would believe Peters insistance he knew nothing of the $100,000 donation until Brian Henry told him in July. But let us pretend for a second we are all morons and Peters did not solicit the money from Glenn, and did not thank him for it.

Helen Clark has said she told WInston in February, that Owen Glenn told her he had donated. Now even if one beleives Peters knew nothing up until then, as of February he conculsively knew Owen Glenn was so insistent he had donated her had told the Prime Minister of NZ he had.

Now after being told that, he went on to do his infamous No press conference, despite knowing that Glenn thought he had donated.

And after the Herald published the e-mail from Owen Glenn, he accussed the NZ Herald fo fabricating it, despite the fact he absolutely knew Owen Glenn did think he had donated.

This kills Peters credibility, if he had any left to kill. He says the first he knew of it was when Brian Henry told him. This is untrue. Even if you do not believe he solicited the donation, Helen Clark has said she told him about Glenn’s belief in it some months earlier.

Just as bad, is that Helen Clark sad there throughout the No press conference and the attacks on the NZ Herald saying nothing, despite having been told by Owen Glenn. She even said nothing when Winston Peters sain in July this was the first he knew of the donation – something she knew was false, as she had told him about it.

Tags: , , , ,

Clark reveals she knew

August 28th, 2008 at 12:12 pm by David Farrar

This is the even bigger smoking gun. Helen Clark has known since February that Owen Glenn donated to Winston Peters. NZPA reports:

Wellington, Aug 28 NZPA – Prime Minister Helen Clark has said Owen Glenn told her earlier this year that he had given $100,000 to New Zealand First leader Winston Peters, but Mr Peters had told her the expatriate billionaire was wrong.

Miss Clark told reporters that Mr Glenn had told her about the donation at a meeting in February.

Miss Clark said that when she had run this by Mr Peters, he had told her that Mr Glenn was mistaken.

These conversations all took place before Mr Peters held a press conference at which he strenuously denied receiving any money from Mr Glenn.

She should resign in disgrace. All this time she has sat there knowing the truth, and has allowed Peters to continue this charade. This must be the end of her.

UPDATE: Clark is defending herself by saying she asked Peters and had to take his word. What crap. Look at when Benson-Pope lied – she asked the media to supply tapes or transcripts to her office so they could work out if he lied.

I knew Clark was unethical but I never quite realised quite how unethical she is. This is really disgusting. She sat there while Winston Peters defamed Audrey Young and said nothing. She knew that e-mail from Owen Glenn was not fake, and said nothing. She thinks her only responsibility to the public of NZ is to ask Winston, and accept without question anything he says. That is not leadership. That is not integrity. That is a sad desperate attempt to remain in power, no matter what.

Tags: , , ,

The myth that the Privileges Committee will decide who is telling the truth

August 27th, 2008 at 3:51 pm by David Farrar

Helen Clark is misleading people by saying it is up to the Privileges Committee to work out the conflict between what Owen Glenn says, and what Winston Peters say.

It is not, and I predict the Committee will not. It is because the facts which are in dispute between Glenn and Peters are not material to the issue of privilege. They are very material to issues of lying and hypocrisy, but not material to the specific issue of privilege before the committee.

The issue before the Committee is whether or not the Register of Interests declaration by Peters is correct or not. Peters has asserted it was correct, as the donation was to Brian Henry, not Peters. Owen Glenn agrees with him on this point – the donation went to Henry to pay for legal fees.

The area where they disagree is whether or not Peters knew of the donation and whether or not he solicited the donation. Now these are irelevant to the issue of privilege, if the donation is deemed something which doesn’t constitute a gift or payment of a debt.

So Helen Clark’s insistence that it is for the Privileges Committee to resolve the conflicting evidence, is wrong and misleading. The conflict of evidence relates to whether or not Peters is a liar and hypocrite, not whether his MPs Return was accurate.

Winston Peters has stated that he only knew Owen Glenn had given money to Brian Henry when Henry told him in July 2008. Owen Glenn has said Peters solicited the money in 2005, knew of the donation, and thanked him for the donation in 2006 or 2007. There is no way to resolve those statements. It is impossible. The Privileges Committee can not do so, and it is not their job to do so.

Helen Clark sacked Lianne Dalziel for lying. She sacked David Benson-Pope for lying. It is the PM’s job to sack Ministers if they lie. But in this case she refuses to take any action. She could have resolved this months ago but is playing the same corrupt game she played with Taito Philip Field – trying to pass the buck to a body which is not empowered to discover the truth – because it is not an issue of privilege – it is an issue of lying and hypocrisy.

Tags: , , , , ,

Yes yes yes yes yes!!

August 27th, 2008 at 11:10 am by David Farrar

Owen Glenn has told the truth in his letter to the Privileges Committee.

Mr Peters sought help from me for this purpose in a personal conversation, some time after I had first met him in Sydney.

Bang.

I agreed to help in the belief that this step would also assist the Labour Party, in its relationship with Mr Peters. I supported the Labour Party.

Of course having Labour’s major donor fund Winston, helps Labour. This might explain why Labour has been trying so hard to not have the facts come out.

There is a wider issue I will return to about the propeity of Labour’s major donor also donating to Winston’s legal expenses and allegedly attempted to the Maori Party, and the pressure it can put on them to keep Labour in office.

I understand that Mr Henry is Mr Peters’ lawyer. I do not know Mr Henry. I do not believe that we have met. I do not recall that I, or my assistants, had any discussion or communication with Mr Henry other than to receive remittance details.

If Glenn is correct, this means Henry has not told the truth in saying he contacted Owen Glenn and solicted the donation himself.

Mr Peters subsequently met me socially at the Karaka yearling sales, I believe in early 2006. He thanked me for my assistance.

This has Peters dead to rights.

One has to remember that Winston has not just told a minor fib to get out of a situation.  He (if you beleive Glenn) has lied massively and repeatedly to everyone. He feigned outrage at his press conference. He held up the no sign. He demanded Tim Murphy and Audrey Young be sacked for exposing the truth. He defamed them by suggesting they fabricated the e-mail.

I’ll be writing a lot more on this, but for now I just want to say thank God Owen Glenn told the truth, when there would have been huge pressure on him to be evasive or even deceptive. For that alone, he should be made Consul to Monaco :-)

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Tom Scott on form

April 24th, 2008 at 2:38 pm by David Farrar

So true.  Original from Stuff.

Tags: , , , ,

Editorials on Williams

April 23rd, 2008 at 11:34 am by David Farrar

Mike Williams gains attention from both The Press and the Dominion Post editorials today. Let’s start with The Press:

The congress took place just weeks after the Electoral Commission found that Labour had become the first party to breach its own Electoral Finance Act by distributing a taxpayer-funded pamphlet which was deemed to be election advertising. Williams’ comment at the congress fairly invited the claim that Labour intended to side-step the Act, by using as electioneering tools pamphlets paid for by the taxpayer and intended to provide apolitical information.

Prime Minister Helen Clark quickly rejected this idea and no doubt thought she had shut the issue down, but the hapless Williams promptly re-opened it. His denial that he had endorsed the delegate’s proposal was quickly disproved by a recording of what he had said.

Clark must be livid at her party president, but has brushed off any suggestion that he should resign by explaining that Williams had been “confused”. But this is not the first time that Williams has been confused and misleading.

One could almost suggest Mr Williams is a pathological confuser!

Williams has also made a huge contribution to Labour, as the campaign manager in 1999, as president and fundraiser, so the party would be reluctant to lose his services before the election. But the question which must be asked is how many more gaffes will it take before Labour decides it would be a “damn good idea” to look for a new president.

Maybe it would just be a “damn good idea” not to blatantly lie nine times in one interview.

The Dominion Post sees a wider trend:

When the president of a political party says one thing and does another, when a government department suppresses a report that is embarrassing to a senior public servant or when a state-owned enterprise associates itself with a company that uses questionable tactics, they do not just damage their own reputations. They damage confidence in institutions that rely upon public trust to function effectively, The Dominion Post writes.

When TVNZ aired a tape showing Labour Party president Mike Williams had used words he said he had not used at a Labour strategy session his response was to say he was sorry for misleading the public but he did not recall using the words in question. When Prime Minister Helen Clark revealed he had admitted to her that he had used the words, several days before he went on television to deny using them, her response was not to demand his resignation but to question the way TVNZ had used the tape.

Indeed. How dare TVNZ reveal her President lied.

If TVNZ had really wanted to play mischief, they could have kept the tape under wraps for a few more days, and asked Clark, Goff and King if this new version of events as told by Mike Williams was now the correct one.  Who would want to bet money that they would have contradicted him? And then think the damage which would have been done if the tape came out after everyone in Labour aligned their stories to the new version. So Clark should not be angry at TVNZ – she should be pleased they aired the tape when they did.

Of course if Mike Williams had never changed the story, and resurrected what was mainly a dead story, TVNZ probably would have never even felt a need to use the tape.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Confused or Lying?

April 22nd, 2008 at 9:03 am by David Farrar

Helen Clark has been defending Mike Williams on the basis he was confused. The Press reports:

Following an all-day Cabinet meeting yesterday, Clark refused to say if Williams had her full confidence.

Asked by a journalist if she still trusted him to tell the truth, she would not answer directly.

“Well, I’ve known him for a long time, but he can be a little loose and confused,” she said.

But does this sound like a confused man. From Agenda:

MIKE  There was a seminar between 8.30 and 9.30 in the morning which I conducted.  The hall was set up so I was right at the back of the stage on a lecturn almost behind the proscenial arch in the Wellington Town Hall, I’ve got 400 witnesses who’d tell you the first thing I said when I took the lecturn was that I could neither see nor hear them, the acoustics were terrible and the lighting was such I couldn’t even see the audience, okay.  I gave my address, it lasted about 50 minutes.  There was then discussion.  Now what I heard the delegate say and I wasn’t hearing him clearly was that if somebody asks you for a Kiwisaver brochure the IRD’s got good ones.  Now according to people there I did not respond that is a good idea, I simply moved on to the next question which was the last one.  So the whole thing is an incredible media beat up, it arguably never happened.

Funny that for someone who could not see or hear the audience, he referred to the delegate (and fellow NZ Council member) by name. Anyway he labels the whole thing an incredible media beat up and denies outright that he praised the suggestion as a damn good idea.

GUYON  So why did Helen Clark accuse you of poor judgement then?

MIKE  Well she hadn’t spoken to me.

Now this part is crucial. This is where Williams is not just “confused” about what happened, but starts to directly lie about his conversations with Clark. He has just asserted he did not respond “That’s a damn good idea”, and the only reason Clark said he exercised poor judgement was that she had not yet spoken to him.

GUYON  So does the Prime Minister accept your…?

MIKE  Absolutely, I’ve spoken to her after the event, she did the right thing.  Now look make it clear it was my session and I take absolute responsibility to anything that was said there, but I do not believe anything like that was said and I certainly did not hear anything like that said and neither did I endorse it.

While Guyon did not finish his sentence, it is clear he is referring to Williams version of events, and Williams very clearly implies on nationwide TV that the PM has accepted he did not endorse the idea of handing out Government pamphlets while campaigning.

But what does Helen say. The Dom Post reports:

But Miss Clark said yesterday that Mr Williams had informed her last week that was what he said.

“The first thing he told me was the right one. That was, he’d reacted along the lines of `what a good idea’ and he should have continued to repeat that. For whatever reason, he didn’t.

Now if one was very gullible or generous one could almost believe Williams was confused about what was said and what he said at the conference. But are we really meant to believe that he was also confused about his conversation with the Prime Minister?

I mean Clark is quite clear about what he said to her.  The Herald reports:

She said she was baffled at Mr Williams’ denial on Agenda, because he had confirmed it to her when she first spoke to him after the Herald revealed it last week.

This is not confusion. How can you be confused about what you told the PM? Having worked with a PM or two, you tend to remember in great detail your conversations with them – especially those only a few days old.

And do you know what is the weird thing. There was no need for Williams to lie. He wasn’t some cornered rat like Benson-Pope desperately lying because the truth would force him out of office. The truth had already come out, and Williams had been gently reprimanded by the PM. There was no suggestion his job was at risk up until the Agenda interview. By trying to rewrite history, he resurrected what had been an almost dead issue. One can only assume he made a calculated decision that no-one could contradict him if he started to spin what happened. But he went well well beyond spinning. He lied nine times in one interview.  He was in no way confused when he says the whole thing is a media beatup and never happened.

Tags: , , , ,

Mike Williams – the video

April 21st, 2008 at 12:27 pm by David Farrar

Whale Oil has stuck the TVNZ item up on You Tube, but has helpfully added on a loud buzzer for everytime Williams tells a porkie. You get to hear it a lot.

Tags: , , ,

Mike Williams caught lying – again

April 20th, 2008 at 6:48 pm by David Farrar

Once again the Labour Party President has been caught lying. He denied repeatedly on camera that he had said something, and TVNZ have produced a tape recording of him saying the exact words he denied.

Let us look at what he said on Agenda this morning:

GUYON  A delegate at the Congress last weekend suggested using public information campaigns like Kiwisaver and information from government departments as an electioneering tool, why did you think that was a quote “damn good idea”?

MIKE  I didn’t think that was quote a “damn good idea” and let me…

GUYON  But that’s what you told them though isn’t it?

MIKE  No it’s not what I told them and let me get this clear.

Okay note here that Guyon said he was quoting what Williams said.  And note Williams absolutely denies he said it. Lie No 1.

MIKE  There was a seminar between 8.30 and 9.30 in the morning which I conducted.  The hall was set up so I was right at the back of the stage on a lecturn almost behind the proscenial arch in the Wellington Town Hall, I’ve got 400 witnesses who’d tell you the first thing I said when I took the lecturn was that I could neither see nor hear them, the acoustics were terrible and the lighting was such I couldn’t even see the audience, okay.  I gave my address, it lasted about 50 minutes.  There was then discussion.  Now what I heard the delegate say and I wasn’t hearing him clearly was that if somebody asks you for a Kiwisaver brochure the IRD’s got good ones.  Now according to people there I did not respond that is a good idea, I simply moved on to the next question which was the last one.  So the whole thing is an incredible media beat up, it arguably never happened.

Lie No 2 is his claim that the delegate merely said if people ask for a KiwiSaver brochure the IRD has got good ones. Lie No 3 is that he did not respond and simply moved onto the next question. And then he has the temerity to state the whole thing is a media beat up.

MIKE  Well she hadn’t spoken to me.  It was a surreal experience and something you’d tell your grandparents about.  At five o’clock on Monday morning I went to Tauranga, I didn’t see a Herald and I got a text from Helen when I got there saying what did this person say, and I responded as I remembered it that if somebody wants a Kiwisaver brochure send them to the IRD, I certainly did not hear anybody say go down and get some, and I’m in good company because Annette King, Phil Goff never heard that either.  I then went to a meeting in Tauranga which went till about three o’clock when I went on a tour of the Port of Tauranga and that turned into…

Lie No 4 is that the comment by the delegate (it gets watered down each time) wasn’t even that one should hand out IRD pamphlets, but that if someone wants one, you should refer them to the IRD.

Lie No 5 is claiming that King and Goff never heard it either. Annette King had already used the Helen Clark No 2 excuse and had previously said she didn’t hear anything at all as she was engrossed in conversation with someone. Now Williams is citing her in his defence.

MIKE  Absolutely, I’ve spoken to her after the event, she did the right thing.  Now look make it clear it was my session and I take absolute responsibility to anything that was said there, but I do not believe anything like that was said and I certainly did not hear anything like that said and neither did I endorse it.

Lie No 6 is his claim that nothing like that was said. Lie No 7 is that he did not hear anything (unless you believe he endorses something he never heard as a damn good idea) and Lie No 8 is his claim he did not endorse it.

MIKE  Absolutely, and the idea is a bad idea not for the reason you gave, you can’t hand out government information but it’s also a damn silly idea, if you’re going canvassing you don’t hand out IRD pamphlets that’s just dumb, but that’s also not what I heard him say.

And that is Lie No 9.

Now let us look at what TVNZ revealed on One News tonight. Williams never though a Labour Party delegate would tape what he said, so he thought he was safe lying repeatedly about what happened:

Delegate: “hand those out when you’re going around and you can say this is what the Labour Government broguht in and by the way the National Party voted against it … In fact they’re better than having Labour Party material because they’re informing people about things they may not already be getting.”

Williams: “Well that’s a damn good idea” … applause

Williams lied to TVNZ and to the public of New Zealand, not once, not twice, but nine times. He lied about what was said, he lied about what he said, he pretty much lied about everything.

This is of course not the first time Mike Williams has been caught out lying. He lied in January when he denied any donations from Owen Glenn since the last election. Also he would have signed off on the letter last election to the Chief Electoral Officer in which they agreed to include the pledge card in their expense return, and then weeks later lied and reneged on their word.

Now normally one would raise the question of whether Mike Williams could continue as Labour Party President after having been caught out lying nine times in the one interview. But I predict this will in no way make Helen Clark reconsider his position. After all she will conclude, his only sin was getting caught. They will not be angry at Williams for lying. They will be angry at the Labour Party delegate who recorded what he said, and exposed his lies.

Tags: , ,