“Banks vs Mud”

Written By: - Date published: 11:26 am, May 19th, 2014 - 134 comments
Categories: accountability, act, activism, democratic participation, news, the praiseworthy and the pitiful - Tags:

A guy angry at something John Banks said on Radio Pacific in 1997, and some very sharp photographers have catapulted John Banks, court appearance today onto the front pages: it’s all in the image, aided by a bit of drama and conflict.

RNZ Reporter Kate Newton captured the moment when Banks was on the receiving end of a face full of mud, and tweeted it into the web-o-sphere.

 

It was labelled “Banks vs Mud” when retweeted by RNZ political reporter, Chris Bramwell.

RNZ reports:

Epsom MP John Banks has had a bucket of dirt thrown at him as he entered the High Court in Auckland to face trial.

Police are speaking to witnesses, and the start of the trial has been delayed.

Mr Banks will be tried by a judge at the High Court in Auckland on a charge of knowingly filing an electoral return that contained false information during his failed 2010 Auckland mayoralty campaign.

The story has also been reported by the NZ Herald:

Act’s sole MP was walking towards the court’s entrance when an elderly man stepped forward and threw a bucket load of mud at him, spattering his face and suit.

Penny Bright, who was protesting against Banks outside the court, witnessed the incident and said the man “just biffed it all over” Banks.

“He just looked like thunder,” she said of Banks, who then composed himself and walked inside.

The NZ Herald has a photo taken by Brett Phibbs, which captures the guy thowing the mud:

This is a bit of political theatre that highlights the way many see some of John Banks past performances.  I don’t know what John Banks said in 1997 to upset the mud thrower, but John Banks certainly did some political, (metaphorical) mud throwing in his radio Talkback days.  Lewis Stoddart wrote a university thesis (2008) on the Talkback smearing of Helen Clark, in which Banks participated:

Helen Clark, the first elected woman Prime Minister of New Zealand, has for decades been the subject of political attacks. These have been made on the basis of her history as an academic, her gender, domestic status and personal life, and not least her politics. John Banks and Lindsay Perigo, in their roles on the Radio Pacific breakfast show The First Edition, crystallised various of these attacks into a characterisation which I describe as ‘communist lesbian dictator’. This is not to say that Banks or Perigo ever owned or controlled the discourse which feeds this characterisation;…

A footnote says that Perigo succeeded Banks as host of First Edition in July 2007.

So, Banks past record as a (metaphorical) dirt thrower has come back to haunt and unsettle him as he goes to court.

The NZ Herald report by Jimmy Ellingham, then focuses on Banks’ current court case:

Banks is alleged to have knowingly received political donations from internet entrepreneur Kim Dotcom and SkyCity that were recorded in official returns as anonymous during his bid for the Auckland mayoralty in 2010.

The allegations relate to two $25,000 donations from Dotcom and a $15,000 donation from SkyCity.

Banks’ trial will be heard by Justice Edwin Wylie, without a jury.

It was due to start at 10am but will now begin at 11.30am.

Stuff is also reporting the mud throwing, while highlighting Banks’ current court appearance.  They have a photo taken by Peter Meecham, of the aftermath of the incident as a muddied Banks heads to court, with protest banners in the background.

Update: TVNZ report

TVNZ has a video of the guy throwing mud and accusing John Banks of stealing $8000 from him.

Update #2: In court today:

Stuff reports on today’s hearing:

Crown prosecutor Paul Dacre QC said Banks held separates meetings with Dotcom and a SkyCity executive about the donations and asked that each of the donations be made in a way so they were shown to be anonymous.

“He engineered the situation to ensure the identity of the donors would not be disclosed,” Dacre said.

During a lunch with Dotcom and his wife, Banks asked for a $50,000 donation to be split into two cheques, he said.

Banks did not recall another meeting with a SkyCity executive relating to donations, Dacre said.

Dotcom, his wife Mona, and SkyCity staff would be called as witnesses during the trial.

The defence will argue Banks believed the electoral expense returns were “true and correct” when filed.

 

134 comments on ““Banks vs Mud” ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. geoff 1
    19 May 2014 at 11:30 am

    Hah!

    Brings back warm memories of Brash getting the mud treatment.

  2. fender 2
    19 May 2014 at 11:34 am

    LOL

    More mud is the last thing this corrupt Key sycophant needs. No doubt he will use taxpayers money to pay the dry-cleaning bill…

  3. Tom Gould 3
    19 May 2014 at 11:35 am

    The Herald is reporting it’s ‘manure’. If it was, then how would anyone notice it on Banks?

  4. Weepu's Beard 4
    19 May 2014 at 11:41 am

    It’s all in the image

    Indeed. I think a picture tells, by several factors, more than 1000 words these days.

  5. tinfoilhat 5
    19 May 2014 at 11:57 am

    I’m a bit disappointed that anyone would see this as appropriate or humorous behaviour.

    Everyone including John Banks has the right to their day on court without fear or favour or this sort of intimidation.

    • idlegus 5.1
      19 May 2014 at 12:01 pm

      i kinda agree with you. its just another form of bullying. though if anyone deserved it, john banks certainly did, so i’m in 2 minds.

      • Blue 5.1.1
        19 May 2014 at 12:06 pm

        No one “deserves” bullying.

        • karol 5.1.1.1
          19 May 2014 at 12:15 pm

          Banks has a record of bullying, by smearing, of others. He participated in the long term smear campaign, away from the main headlines, of Helen Clark. He has used his power-via-media-profile, to bad mouth Maori and Pacific people in South Auckland.

          Whether or not you agree with the mud throwing, it’s the kind of thing that gets mainstream media attention – image, drama, conflict. Banks has lived by the media in the past, and now he has been caught in/by the same kind of MSM infotainment logic.

          • fender 5.1.1.1.1
            19 May 2014 at 12:21 pm

            At least Banks will have no recollection of the incident by tomorrow.. 🙂

            • Tiger Mountain 5.1.1.1.1.1
              19 May 2014 at 12:58 pm

              Others seem to have way longer memories than Banksie about his own behaviour, what ever Mr Polar fleece’s beef with John Archibald the image will heh, stick with people.

            • phillip ure 5.1.1.1.1.2
              19 May 2014 at 3:12 pm

              @ fender..heh..!

              ..he might even ‘remember’ that he poured it all over himself..

          • Blue 5.1.1.1.2
            19 May 2014 at 12:50 pm

            So you believe bullying is justified if the target is a bully then? Is this the advice you would give to someone who has been bullied ? A child?

            • karol 5.1.1.1.2.1
              19 May 2014 at 12:53 pm

              I’m not justifying the guy’s actions. The focus of my post is the media’s reporting of it, and on Banks’ past use of the media – and the logic of our current media.

              The guy who threw the mud will be dealt with by the law.

              • aerobubble …
                19 May 2014 at 3:06 pm

                Ask the question, who has most to gain by looking like a victim. Who has most to gain by giving the judge another mitigating circumstance. The man who threw this shit should be up on charges for messing with the court, as Banks had to be sent home.

                Sure wait until after, and for sure, it will be harder to throw shit, so try eggs, but really seriously when do we like cowards who take the easy way. That’s why the Police need to be firm with this man, and find if he was paid by anyone.

                Banks now looks like the victim.

                • karol …
                  19 May 2014 at 3:30 pm

                  It all depends on how the media portray it as regards who looks like the victim. Banks will try to characterise himself as a victim, as he has done all along.

                  I’m surprised the mud thrower is not in custody. It beggars belief that such an incident, committed in front of the media, and outside a court, did not result in an instant arrest.

                  In the end, though, the courts will decide on Banks’ innocence or guilt on the electoral donations issue. And that’s the most significant matter with respect to Banks’ reputation.

                  Although, for me, Banks’ past deeds, in relation to politics and his role on Talkback, already irreparably damaged his reputation.

              • Huginn …
                19 May 2014 at 5:23 pm

                weasel words, karol

                • North …
                  19 May 2014 at 10:49 pm

                  Tut Tut Tut Tut Tut !

                  Banks is a despicable creature, a deservedly crashed neoliberal idol (forget the wincing and pearl-clutching of a few loony tunes) and the mud thrower will be dealt with.

                  For decades Banks and his ilk have snortingly, sneeringly, gloatingly, done more harm to decent people in this country than a thousand polar fleece mud throwers could possibly do.

                  ‘Cry Cry Cry’ you right wing punks !

              • Grantoc …
                19 May 2014 at 8:13 pm

                Actually Banks has decided not to press charges.

                By not doing so he’s displaying a degree of magnanimity and dignity that many of his detractors don’t.

                • the pigman …
                  20 May 2014 at 12:11 am

                  Actually, it’s not Banks’ decision whether “charges are pressed” or not, that’s a matter for the police. Which is a funny and roundabout way brings us back to the significance of this whole trial.

                  If they don’t charge the guy, perhaps McCready will pursue a private prosecution against him.

                  Magnanimity and dignity? Banks? Hahahaha… you’ve got to be joking.

          • Rosie 5.1.1.1.3
            19 May 2014 at 1:11 pm

            Classic case of what goes round comes round……………

          • Gosman 5.1.1.1.4
            19 May 2014 at 2:17 pm

            How did he participate in this smear campaign against Helen Clark?

            • Tracey 5.1.1.1.4.1
              19 May 2014 at 3:09 pm

              why dont you read the whole opening post, all the links, google sources referred to and miraculously find your question answered already.

              • Gosman …
                19 May 2014 at 4:37 pm

                That actually states he didn’t participate. It was other people’s views. He was just a talk back host that enabled people to give voice to these thoughts. That hardly makes him guilty of having those views himself. It would be like trying to argue The Standard reflects the views of the extreme leftists who comment here. It certainly doesn’t and anyone claiming that it did would be wrong and also pulled up on it by the Sysop.

                • Hanswurst …
                  19 May 2014 at 5:08 pm

                  That’s rubbish. Your question was as to whether Banks participated, not whether it reflected his views. You say that he enabled people to “give voice to these thoughts”. That is participating.

                  • Gosman …
                    19 May 2014 at 5:14 pm

                    We are discussing whether it is appropriate for Banks to have mud thrown at him. The reason given was that he participated in attacks on Helen Clark. The only evidence for this was that he was a talkback host that took calls from people her attacked Helen Clark. As I pointed out that is entirely bogus and would be like if someone held contributors to The Standard accountable for views of people who post objectionable comments about say John Key (Or even John Banks). That would be rightly pointed out as being wrong to do yet you and others don’t see a problem with it happening to Banks for some reason.

                    • Hanswurst …
                      19 May 2014 at 5:18 pm

                      Well, I have a quote from you directly above my previous comment stating that he didn’t participate, and then, one sentence later, that he did. Therefore, I say your post is rubbish. I don’t believe you have a quote suggesting that I see no problem with mud being thrown at Banks. So again, rubbish.

                      Also, your point about The Standard is wide of the mark. The Standard does, as you term it in your prior post, “reflect” the views of those posting here. That is, of course, not the same as its reflecting the views of any individual author or commenter.

                    • Gosman …
                      19 May 2014 at 5:22 pm

                      That is not mine definition (nor I would suggest is it of very many others) of participation in some campaign of denigration against Helen Clark. Unless you have evidence of him actively goading his listeners to ring in and abuse her then all you are accusing him of is guilt by association rather than participation.

                    • McFlock …
                      19 May 2014 at 5:33 pm

                      The difference between the folk responsible for The Standard and Banks is that TS mods crack down on the more deranged contributors and ensure that they understand that such contributions are unacceptable.

                      This is a feature lacking in many talkback hosts, not just banks in his day.

                    • karol …
                      19 May 2014 at 6:02 pm

                      Gosman, you obviously haven’t read Stoddart’s thesis as linked to in my post. Stoddart analysed transcripts of the talkback shows, and describes the kind of language Banks and Perigo used in talking and demonising Helen Clark. The evidence shows Banks actively participating himself, not just the talk back callers. For instance, Stoddart says,

                      The primary means by which Banks and Perigo characterise Clark as a communist lesbian dictator is by constructing an us/them moiety division, containing in the ‘them’ group Clark, her government, its supporters and an astonishing assortment of the world’s evildoers; and in the ‘us’ group the hosts, certain of their political allies, and the ‘battlers from Struggle Street’

                      Also I am not justifying the mud throwing at all. I’m not into those sort of actions. The guy, when found, will not doubt face some court actions.

                      I am commenting on the photos, and how they mirror the kinds of things Banks has done in the past.

                • Lanthanide …
                  19 May 2014 at 5:31 pm

                  Gosman, a talkback host is sitting, listening to the views of the person calling up. They are actively involved in whether to allow the view to be broadcast, or not.

                  That is quite a bit different than The Standard, where people can leave comments, some of which are never read by moderators, and often if they are it isn’t until hours later.

                  Furthermore, The Standard is not a high-profile radio show that must uphold broadcasting standards of fairness and balance, whereas whatever show it is that Banks works on, is.

                  Finally, someone parroting crap on live radio takes up time. The more time they spend dribbling on about crap, the less time there is for others to refute or argue the point they made. The same does not really apply to The Standard. So by allowing people to spout off this crap, taking up airtime, John Banks most certainly did participate.

          • Huginn 5.1.1.1.5
            19 May 2014 at 5:19 pm

            karol:

            It’s not ok to force people to run a gauntlet where they get shit thrown at them on their way to court. It’s barbaric.

            Brash, Prebble, and even Key, had stuff thrown at them while they were on political business; they had choices. Banks had no choices because he was summoned to appear; he was a sitting duck.

            • Lanthanide 5.1.1.1.5.1
              19 May 2014 at 5:32 pm

              Banks could have plead guilty at several opportunities before now. He was not “forced” to attend court.

              • Huginn …
                19 May 2014 at 6:55 pm

                Lanthanide

                Banks would still have been required to turn up at court, in person

                • Lanthanide …
                  19 May 2014 at 7:04 pm

                  Not today he wouldn’t. If he had plead guilty on any of the other occasions he went to court, ie, earlier this year, then he would have had no need to go to court today and therefore would not have had shit thrown at him today.

                  We can see from the record of history that on previous occasions he did not get shit thrown at him.

                  Therefore, he had a choice, he made the choice that led to him getting shit thrown at him (similarly, he could have not broken the law, that also would have helped).

                  • weka …
                    19 May 2014 at 11:01 pm

                    Generally I’m with Pb (the whole thing is just worth laughing about). But I do think there is a line, and saying that Banks had a choice crosses it. If he were someone that was innocent, how does the ‘he has a choice’ thing run? Are we saying that it’s ok to harrass someone on the way to court because we know they are already guilty? Or if they are innocent, they could still have avoided today by pleading guilty any way? Really?

                    • Hanswurst …
                      19 May 2014 at 11:49 pm

                      I think the real point is that it’s a mischaracterisation to say that he was “forced” to run a gauntlet. He was obliged to appear in court. That was the only element that was “forced”.On the way, he was accosted and bestrewn with excrement by some dickhead, which is a separate issue and could happen in exactly the same way to any person whose whereabouts at a given time are known in advance, no matter whether their attendance is compulsory or voluntary. To claim that the situation was substantially different from what happened to Messrs Prebble, Brash or any other individual who has had stuff thrown at them is disingenuous.

                    • weka …
                      20 May 2014 at 9:54 am

                      Agreed. There was nothing in running the gauntlet about it, and the time/place is about access and maximum media exposure. In that sense Banks is a politician just like any other.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      20 May 2014 at 11:14 am

                      Yip, Hanswurst got my point.

                      I was being disingenuous there to see if I could draw out Huginn any further, but he didn’t take the bait.

            • North 5.1.1.1.5.2
              19 May 2014 at 11:03 pm

              As were the relatively powerless who were vilified over the years by Banks and his like from their various public perches. Banks and his like didn’t give a fuck what harm, humiliation, and pain they caused. They clucked about it. And so did their piggish acolytes/supporters.

              Can’t understand why they’re not supremely happy in the matter.

            • appleboy 5.1.1.1.5.3
              20 May 2014 at 3:04 am

              Diddims!

    • Weepu's Beard 5.2
      19 May 2014 at 12:11 pm

      Yes, I suppose you are right. Everyone does have the right to their day in court without harassment, although a lot of the time that doesn’t translate to serious criminal/sexual offenders.

      It is being reported that this fellow is a serial offender (not Banks, the other guy, haha) and the police usually round him up before he leaves home when there is a Royal visit on, etc.

      Question is, where were the police today? Budget cuts anyone? Anyone?

    • Clemgeopin 5.3
      19 May 2014 at 1:03 pm

      So I take it you are against extra judicial assassination through drones?

  6. Anne 6
    19 May 2014 at 12:25 pm

    What about a sweep-stake on;

    Who will blame the Labour Party (or the Left) first.

    I’ll go with Slater.

    • Blue 6.1
      19 May 2014 at 12:51 pm

      The paranoia runs deep eh Anne?

    • fender 6.2
      19 May 2014 at 1:05 pm

      Yeah Slater will probably claim Cunliffe paid the guy to throw manure 😉

      Maybe the guy could help Slater smell better for his court case by repeating the incident 🙂

  7. Naki man 7
    19 May 2014 at 12:47 pm

    The stupid old goat has a history of protesting he has been charged twice before for doing this type of thing to prince Charles

  8. Pascal's bookie 8
    19 May 2014 at 12:49 pm

    In a perfect world this sort of thing wouldn’t happen, tsk tsk, but we don’t live in a perfect world and it did happen so no point not laughing I reckon.

    • You_Fool 8.1
      19 May 2014 at 1:24 pm

      Would you have the same attitude if Russel Norman has mud thrown on him when he has his sate in court (assuming the Colin Craig defamation case is going ahead?)

      • karol 8.1.1
        19 May 2014 at 1:30 pm

        Norman hasn’t used the less savory sections of the media to smear other politicians. If mud were thrown at him, I’m sure Norman will still continue to uphold his political positions and values that have been widely reported in the media.

        Norman survived the manhandling of Chinese minders when he held the Tibetan flag at the Beehive, was jeered at by many on the right, and still went on to develop a stronger media presence.

      • emergency mike 8.1.2
        19 May 2014 at 6:33 pm

        “Would you have the same attitude if Russel Norman has mud thrown on him when he has his sate in court (assuming the Colin Craig defamation case is going ahead?)”

        If Norman was as much an unprincipled, opportunistic, bullying political one-trick pony (I iz so tough on crime), as Banks, then yeah fool, probably.

        Isn’t it interesting how TS’s usually morally relativist RWNJ contributors, cough, suddenly develop the most noble absolute standards of personal ethics when one of their own gets doused in mud? What are us liberal lefties thinking laughing at John Banks getting such a mud sandwich, what if someone we liked got one!? Good stuff keep it coming.

    • Lanthanide 8.2
      19 May 2014 at 2:25 pm

      That sums up my position on it.

      • karol 8.2.1
        19 May 2014 at 2:33 pm

        My position on the incident, isn’t to do with laughing at Banks – more a bit of reflection on the lines of – live by the sword (media); die by the sword.

        I would rather the MSM focused on issues, policies, etc, and that the (wider) media hadn’t implicitly or actively enabled the kind of slightly behind the MSM scenes kind of smearing that was practiced against Clark.

  9. Clemgeopin 9
    19 May 2014 at 12:52 pm

    The mud seems to have struck!
    May be Banks could ask Kim Dot Com for a new suit, though I doubt KDC will be too keen to oblige given that Banks refused to help Kim by ignoring his request to help arrange for a better mattress to ease Kim’s backache while in Jail.

    • Ron 9.1
      19 May 2014 at 1:05 pm

      No use asking Kim he has no money, try Mona instead.

      May be Banks could ask Kim Dot Com for a new suit,

  10. Travellerev 10
    19 May 2014 at 1:03 pm

    In many European countries mud baths are considered a medicinal treatment. It draws out the toxins and cleanses and heals the system. Maybe the guy was just a well wisher. 😆

    • The Al1en 10.1
      19 May 2014 at 1:15 pm

      Need a much bigger bucket than that draw out Bank’s toxins

    • JAK 10.2
      19 May 2014 at 7:02 pm

      “the guy” went to a lot of trouble.
      He found out when and where John Banks would be entering the court
      He located a bucket and some shit and put the shit in the bucket
      He transported the shit bucket to the court (this might have involved driving and finding a park, or getting someone to drop him off or walking – forget public transport or biking)
      He managed an effective throw (suggesting practice)
      This was nor an impulsive act.
      He planned and executed a successful shit throw at another person
      WHY ?

      • lprent 10.2.1
        19 May 2014 at 7:48 pm

        He doesn’t like John Banks? That is the obvious explanation. But I am sure you will have a conspiracy theory involving crystals, communists, and a lot of wanking as you try puff your intelligence up…

      • felix 10.2.2
        19 May 2014 at 8:20 pm

        “WHY ?”

        Well you could always listen to what he actually said, I suppose.

        He said it was because Banks stole $8000 from him. Which presumably means he invested his $8000 in Banks’ dirty scam company Huljich Wealth Management.

      • North 10.2.3
        19 May 2014 at 11:10 pm

        Why ? Why ? Fulla was just bringin’ the contents of the bucket back home to Daddy I guess.

  11. Naki man 11
    19 May 2014 at 1:16 pm

    Banks will have the last laugh when Slim Dot Crim rots in a US prison cell

    • You_Fool 11.1
      19 May 2014 at 1:23 pm

      Would that be Banksie laughing from behind NZ prison bars?

      I would bet on minimum security / rich guy prison in the US would be much better than the same in NZ

      • Tracey 11.1.1
        19 May 2014 at 1:49 pm

        i dont think he will get prison IF found guilty, home detention…. i think the judiciary would distinguish this from the field case. banks will appeal if found guilty, and will apply for bail…

    • karol 11.2
      19 May 2014 at 1:26 pm

      I think Banks is more concerned for his own future. And, furthermore, I’d say Banks’ political career is over. I guess he’ll go back to talk back, where he can continue to spin the world as he prefers it?

      The way he and the likes of Perigo and many others, smeared Helen Clark, will go down in history of one of the less savoury episodes in NZ politics. It was nasty, falsely-framed, personally-focused, and played to all kinds of bigotry.

      • Tracey 11.2.1
        19 May 2014 at 1:43 pm

        apparently smearing clark in aconcerted, nasty, bullying manner is different to throwing mud.

        i wonder how much john banks was paid to be executive cdirector, and following hujlichs resignation, executive chairman of hujlich and not actually oversee or know anything that was going on?

        13 March 2008

        ” John Banks says he understands why “Mum and Dad” investors would “flog off” their Auckland International Airport shares but he believes the Canadian Pension Plan deal offers nothing for the council.

        The Auckland City Mayor told nzherald.co.nz although Auckland sold half its airport shares six years ago to service debt, it would be holding on to the other half because the airport was a strategic “gateway” to Auckland.

        “From day one they [the CPP] has had push back. They don’t offer anything. If the transaction was to proceed, Auckland City and Manukau City will have ceded much of their strategic position to the Canadians,” Mr Banks said.

        But he remains confident that the Government will stall any plans of a Canadian buy-in.

        “The jungle drums have been beating long and loud,” he said, referring to Finance Minister Michael Cullen’s plans to tighten the rules surrounding overseas investment.

        Mr Banks, an executive director of investment company Hujlich Wealth, said the government would not capitulate to “big business” and it will stand out in the “pitiful and shameful commercial history of this country”.

        He also criticised the airport board and said the situation had been badly handled.

        “I respect them but most of them are out of their depth. The leadership has been weak and the asset has been substantially undervalued,” Mr Banks said.

        "

      • Lanthanide 11.2.2
        19 May 2014 at 2:09 pm

        When interviewed at the Act party convention and asked if he would run for the supercity mayorality, he didn’t say no and he said it depends on the future.

        I think if he’s found not-guilty, there’s a good chance he’ll run again.

        • karol 11.2.2.1
          19 May 2014 at 2:15 pm

          Oh, dear gods, no.

          Let’s hope the left (or even the centre) has a stronger candidate than Banks.

  12. adrian 12
    19 May 2014 at 1:32 pm

    If only it had been two half-full buckets of mud he might have been able to keep it quiet

  13. cricklewood 13
    19 May 2014 at 1:51 pm

    Will be an interesting trial, I heard on the radio that both Mona Dotcom and Wayne Tempero are witnesses for the prosecution.
    Testimony will be interesting and hopefully not coloured by recent events…

  14. Will@Welly 14
    19 May 2014 at 2:10 pm

    They say ‘sh*t sticks’. And I bet John Banks must wonder at times, why did he ever listen to that ‘rather unpleasant’ Rodney Hide, and why was he ever allowed to touch the Auckland region.
    I wonder if Mt. Eden will charge ‘visitors’ to see Mr Banks ‘working on the chain-gain’.
    “Swing low, sweet chariot, comin’ for to carry me home,
    swing low, sweet chariot, Banksie comin’ to do some work soon,
    swing low, sweet chariot, convicted like the the bully-boy he is,
    swing low, sweet chariot, back-breaking work that is.
    Now work it Banksie !!”

  15. ianmac 15
    19 May 2014 at 2:47 pm

    A bad thing to throw mud like the old chap did. He will probably turn out to be a bit unbalanced rather than a serious political protester.
    Bank’s twisted performance is another matter entirely.

    • Tracey 15.1
      19 May 2014 at 3:19 pm

      perhaps he is sick of grinning and bearing hardship, perhaps he has seen the roll call of badly behaved over paid cabinet ministers taking the piss at the expense of ordinary folks, perhaps he lost money in one of the many collapsed financial companies, perhaps he doesnt trust a politician will be held to account, perhaps he thought the media would do a low profile focus on the case, perhaps throwing mud on a smarmy, i have nothing to fear and nothing to hide but tried everything to stop this going to court, taxpaid employee was the onlyway he could get back a sense of satisfaction in a life where the behaviour of many of our politicians and their pr armies makes him feel powerless.

      • JanM 15.1.1
        19 May 2014 at 6:07 pm

        Yes, I agree with your point – there is nothing quite lie the feeling of helpless rage when you have been done over by someone too wealthy to reach or gain justice from. The seriously rich can always win against the little person because he can afford to just sit them out and hide behind his privilege. While not really recommending mud-throwing in this situation I have been done over by the likes of him and can understand the motivation, if that’s what it’s about.

        • Anne 15.1.1.1
          19 May 2014 at 6:39 pm

          I have been done over by the likes of him and can understand the motivation, if that’s what it’s about.

          Yes JanM. To be done over, no matter what form it may take, is like a cancer. It eats away at your soul, especially if you know the culprit/culprits have got away with it and justice is never going to be served. It can take years to recover. Indeed some never recover.

  16. Papa Tuanuku 16
    19 May 2014 at 4:55 pm

    from wiki:

    In 1995, his fellow National Party Member of Parliament John Carter rang his programme impersonating a workshy Māori called Hone, which caused widespread offence.[8]

  17. weka 17
    19 May 2014 at 4:59 pm

    “Yeah Slater will probably claim Cunliffe paid the guy to throw manure”

    My money is on Banks having paid someone 😉

  18. Gosman 18
    19 May 2014 at 5:20 pm

    test

  19. Naki man 19
    19 May 2014 at 6:07 pm

    Like I said earlier today Karol, the stupid old goat was Sam the royal protester

  20. SouthDeez 20
    19 May 2014 at 6:14 pm

    Stoddart’s thesis gets my vote for best title of an academic work.

    It’s a bloody good read too. Hat tip to Karol for linking it. I’m likely to incorporate it into my University work at some stage.

  21. felix 21
    19 May 2014 at 6:30 pm

    Of course his other specialty on the radio was violent bigoted hate-speech.

    Like the time he chatted with a caller about how gays should have six inches of barbed wire shoved up their arses. Banskie didn’t object at all to broadcasting that bit of violent sexual imagery, but he did mention that it might be a waste of good wire.

    Funnily enough my first thought on hearing of today’s protest was “what a waste of good manure”

  22. Psycho Milt 22
    19 May 2014 at 7:09 pm

    So, Banks past record as a (metaphorical) dirt thrower has come back to haunt and unsettle him as he goes to court.

    What would you have thought of some deranged-looking ranter throwing shit over Helen Clark, Karol? Entertaining bit of political theatre is what it would have been, right?

    • karol 22.1
      19 May 2014 at 7:29 pm

      Helen Clark has had some extremely nasty stuff vented at her over the years – homophobia, smears at her childlessness, smears about her being some communist plant, etc, etc. Her government did many things I disagree with, and I stopped voting for Labour during her term in government.

      However, she hasn’t perpetrated anything like the nastiness, and hate speech that the likes of John Banks have spewed out over the years.

      Clark has been reduced to tears at Waitangi, had a brick thrown through her electoral office, and been verbally abused many, many times.

      She has hung in there, taken all the vile nastiness, and continues to be very professional and productive in her public life.

      • Psycho Milt 22.1.1
        19 May 2014 at 7:40 pm

        But throwing shit on her would be a bit of political theatre that highlighted how many people viewed her performance, right? Or is it ‘political theatre’ only when right-wingers are getting shit thrown on them?

        • karol 22.1.1.1
          19 May 2014 at 7:46 pm

          As I said, it provided a visual image that was reminiscent of the nastiness Banks had thrown at others. It’s not so much about Banks being right wing, but his hate speech that he whipped up against his political opponents and others whose life-style and/or background he disagreed with.

          Banks was part of a vile, underhand smear campaign used to undermine Clark. There’s not a lot of politicians, left or right who have taken such an active part in such a campaign.

          • Psycho Milt 22.1.1.1.1
            19 May 2014 at 7:58 pm

            Kiwiblog (hell, my own blog) has no shortage of commenters who felt the same about Clark. Feeling very strongly about something isn’t justification for tipping shit all over the object of your outrage – you’d think this wouldn’t be a difficult concept to grasp, but apparently it is.

            As to hanging in there and taking all the vile nastiness, I notice Banks declined to lay a complaint against the dero doing the shit-slinging.

            • karol 22.1.1.1.1.1
              19 May 2014 at 8:07 pm

              I don’t advocate that anyone throw shit at anyone else. It’s not something I’ve ever done as a political protest, and I wouldn’t encourage anyone else to do that.

        • The Al1en 22.1.1.2
          19 May 2014 at 7:47 pm

          I’ve just read a bit of your web page. Comments like…

          “A Smart Maori……………..is one who recognises a malodorous pile of ordure (a heap of shit) when he sees one and keeps well away from it. It appears one Julian Wilcox is a smart Maori”

          and

          “Why do first home buyers (and students) need my freakin money? As if Beneficiaries aren’t bad enough!”

          It’s clear you’re quite an expert at slinging shit.

          • Psycho Milt 22.1.1.2.1
            19 May 2014 at 7:53 pm

            It’s clear you’re quite an expert at slinging shit.

            Others’ poor reading comprehension isn’t my problem.

            • The Al1en 22.1.1.2.1.1
              19 May 2014 at 7:57 pm

              Obviously not good at taking shit when it comes your way, but like Banksy, you wear it well 😉

              • Psycho Milt …
                19 May 2014 at 8:02 pm

                Your accurate assessment of your own comment renders a substantive response superfluous.

                • The Al1en …
                  19 May 2014 at 8:09 pm

                  If you had a substantive response instead of croc tears for JB, I wouldn’t even have thought twice to check your blog.
                  As it is, I’ll leave you with this old chestnut to boo hoo over 😉

                  Q. What ‘s the difference between John Banks and a bucket of shit?
                  A. The bucket.

                • North …
                  19 May 2014 at 11:20 pm

                  The Allen is doing you like a dinner Psycho One. Throw in the towel dickhead.

        • Anne 22.1.1.3
          19 May 2014 at 9:12 pm

          The man had a personal axe to grind with John Banks P.Milt. I’m not condoning what he did, but he was clearly a very angry and upset man. To try and equate any similar comparison with Helen Clark is childish in my view. She may not have had manure thrown at her but she had plenty of equally unsavoury experiences that would have caused a less strong person than herself to completely crack. I know a few things she had to put up with in the years before she became PM which never made the public arena. Let me assure you it was disgusting behaviour.

    • Daveosaurus 22.2
      19 May 2014 at 7:50 pm

      It wasn’t so many years ago that some thuggish yob, at a protest against some event or other, tried to physically attack Helen Clark, using a placard (typically attached to a solid wooden stake, before you try to minimise its potential effect); the attack was deflected by another MP who was attending the same event. What happened then? The usual bunch of moaning minnies said nothing about the attack on Helen Clark, but tried to paint the deflection of that attack as some sort of assault itself.

      • Psycho Milt 22.2.1
        19 May 2014 at 8:07 pm

        Looks like we might be making progress on the path to a taxonomy of physical assault as ‘political theatre’ here. So far, we’ve got throwing shit is good, hitting with a placard is bad. Where does setting fire to them and then refusing to piss on them fall under this heirarchy, I wonder?

        • Daveosaurus 22.2.1.1
          20 May 2014 at 5:38 pm

          That is an interesting claim for you to make, considering that the only comment I recall having made even peripherally about this week’s manifestation of the Banks / bullshit interface is the one immediately above your reply. I look forward to reading anything attributed to myself that substantiates your “throwing shit is good” paraphrase.

  23. Jenny 23
    19 May 2014 at 7:51 pm

    The photo actually looks like somethng is leaving Banks head.

    Could this be the world’s first ever photographic evidence of an exorcism?

    Either that, or a little brown dragon is trying to bite John Banks on the cheek.

  24. Skinny 24
    19 May 2014 at 8:31 pm

    I saw the trial proceedings on the tv news. Poor old bent Bankie looked deflated, especially after his campaign man testified. I would be turning a sick ghostly white too after that totally unbelievable testimony.

    Must of felt like a double whammy for Bankie. First the mud slinging then a bucket of shit poured over his head by one of his own on day one in court.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 24.1
      19 May 2014 at 9:54 pm

      Trouble is : having someone else testify about your state of mind while you sit in the courtroom is a bit unreal.

      Nothing to hide Mr Banks ? Then go ahead and sit in the witness box and testify on your own behalf and dont let others do the talking for you.

      • Skinny 24.1.1
        20 May 2014 at 12:13 pm

        If Mike Sabin gets his private members bill pulled from the tin that may change. The right to silence removed. The ex cop wants Collins job, look out if he does!

  25. Richard Olykan 25
    19 May 2014 at 10:11 pm

    Was it manure?
    It seemed more like bull-shit and got onto Banksey like a magnet.

  26. Penny Bright 26
    19 May 2014 at 11:28 pm

    Some more mainstream media coverage from DAY ONE of this historic court case.

    PRIME NEWS
    http://www.primetv.co.nz/Default.aspx?alias=www.primetv.co.nz/news

    RNZ
    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#drafts?compose=146140635f099e58

    NEWSTALK ZB
    ww.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland/video/video-mud-thrown-at-john-banks

    NBR
    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/trial-delayed-after-protester-covers-john-banks-mud-ns-156375

    Penny Bright

  27. Murray Olsen 27
    20 May 2014 at 4:08 am

    I was quite happy to see whatever it was thrown at Banks. I would hate to see anyone do it to Russel Norman, Metiria Turei, or Hone Harawira. I am a very flawed human being. Cry me a river.

  29. Tracey 29
    20 May 2014 at 2:58 pm

    michelle boag testified today.

    ” Michelle Boag said she had worked on Banks’ campaign team as a fundraiser.

    She said Banks had never mentioned Mr Dotcom during 2010.

    i never knew who Mr Dotcom was until he was arrested ”

    didnt another national party person once say that???

    • karol 29.1
      20 May 2014 at 3:08 pm

      The report on today’s proceedings doesn’t look so good for anyone involved. Dotcom trying to buy influence? Banks offering favours, not unrelated to donations. Len Brown is allegedly approaching SkyCity for funds…..

      Who to believe?

      • Tracey 29.1.1
        20 May 2014 at 3:15 pm

        none of them could sue anyone for defamation because none of them have good reputations. so many self interested wealthy people in one room, and not at a cabinet club meeting.

  31. Steve Wrathall 31
    20 May 2014 at 4:17 pm

    Lamingtons, manure….pfft. They’ve thrown everything they can think of at ACT and we’re still standing

    • fender 31.1
      20 May 2014 at 4:21 pm

      Getting the book thrown at him will not see Banks standing for much longer..

    • Jenny 31.2
      21 May 2014 at 8:38 pm

      “Lamingtons, manure….pfft. They’ve thrown everything they can think of at ACT and we’re still standing”
      Steve Wrathall

      Only because you are being held up by National