Field’s guilt and Farrar’s shame

128 comments on “Field’s guilt and Farrar’s shame ”

• Comments are now closed

1. the sprout 1

   4 August 2009 at 9:01 pm

   great post r0b.
   to be fair to dpf though, i guess if you’re trying to defend this administration, you can’t exactly rely on too many facts. lies would be your best friends in the scenario farrar’s painted himself into.
   • Tim Ellis 1.1

     4 August 2009 at 9:19 pm

     Compared with, I suppose, the flawless litany of facts that Eddie has come up with in the last post that he says as soon as the allegations arose Ms Clark sacked Mr Field, as an example of how to behave?
   • starboard 1.2

     5 August 2009 at 7:04 pm

     pfft..pot meet kettle…
2. Gooner 2

   4 August 2009 at 9:10 pm

   Great post my arse.

   If three words of dubious interpretive value is all you can produce to defend Clark and her administration from this then it goes to show how screwed in the head your lot really are.

   Field is corrupt. Clark more than likely knew but hung on to him for the PI vote. Goff had an interesting part to play too which will come out in due course.

   And you practically condone it because Farrar omitted three words.

   Go and read a real left wing activist on Farrar’s blog, Toad, and see what his view is. I truly wonder how people like you sleep at night.
   • felix 2.1

     4 August 2009 at 9:29 pm

     “Go and read left wing activist Farrar’s blog, Toad, and see what his view is.”

     Why do you call Farrar a left wing activist, Goon?

     Sure, it’s not an exact quote, but I only removed three words.
     • Lew 2.1.1

       4 August 2009 at 10:32 pm

       Felix, you win.

       L
3. kaya 3

   4 August 2009 at 9:12 pm

   Fuck, whatever happened to the Labour Party I supported for 30 years. Time to clean out the closet and get back to the basics. These moronic academics (no not mutually exclusive in this case) need to get kicked to kingdom come.
   • IrishBill 3.1

     4 August 2009 at 10:42 pm

     Hi Dad.
4. kaya 4

   4 August 2009 at 9:15 pm

   Christ almighty, it might take longer than I hoped if this is the level of comment from grassroots labour.
5. mickysavage 5

   4 August 2009 at 9:19 pm

   On ya r0b

   Prepare for the onslaught of wingnuts inspired by the National conference over the weekend who will attack with their cut and paste lines and will accuse Helen of everything and if you raise anything in response there will be the retort of

   “oh but Helen did ”

   DPF must have written this post with help months ago. It is not the sort of thing you casually trot out 5 minutes after the result of the trial was announced.

   And the subtle rewriting of the quote, applying spin and then condemning because of the spin line is getting a bit tedious. Serious debate anyone?
   • Tim Ellis 5.1

     4 August 2009 at 9:24 pm

     Micky I have a lot of respect for Helen Clark. She was the most intelligent and I think oen of the most politically gifted prime ministers New Zealand has had. She wasn’t without her flaws though, and her handling of the Field case was shameful. It’s not a lot to be proud about when the only defences are Eddie’s blatant rewrite of history, and r0b protesting at two or three words in a quote which might suit r0b’s game of splitting hairs but have little consequence to the substance.

     Put it this way, put r0b’s preferred quote back into Mr Farrar’s timeline, and Labour’s handling of the issue is no less shameful.
     • The Voice of Reason 5.1.1

       4 August 2009 at 9:37 pm

       “splitting hairs”, Tim?

       Leaving the words out, and without any indication of the foreshortening, completely distorts the meaning of the sentence. That’s not splitting hairs, it’s deliberate misrepresentation of what Clark actually said.

       I thought auditors were big on accuracy, Tim?
       • Tim Ellis 5.1.1.1

         4 August 2009 at 10:11 pm

         I’m not into verbal semantics, which is all this is TVOR.
         • The Voice of Reason 5.1.1.1.1

           4 August 2009 at 10:26 pm

           Nuh huh, Tim. It’s not semantics, it’s a deliberate distortion of what was actually said to bolster a thin argument. Farrar relies on it to establish his case and it’s not true. A sin of omission, if ever I saw one!
           • ben 5.1.1.1.1.1

             4 August 2009 at 11:51 pm

             Tim Ellis is spot on. The qualifiers quite obviously change nothing. If The Standard wants to throw stones it should get its own house in order first.
         • Luxated 5.1.1.1.2

           4 August 2009 at 11:09 pm

           Lets take a slightly more famous quote from a politician and remove a few words and see what happens shall we?

           “I did not have a sexual relationship with that woman”

           Remove one word and we have:

           “I did have a sexual relationship with that woman”

           See? The difference is more than mere semantics.
           • ben 5.1.1.1.2.1

             4 August 2009 at 11:52 pm

             Retarded. Just a stupid, stupid example. Thanks, though.
           • Luxated 5.1.1.1.2.2

             5 August 2009 at 12:45 am

             Err thanks ben.

             Demonstrates the point quite well though, because funnily enough removing words from sentences completely changes the meaning.

             I’ll leave you with a Twain quote completely unmangled because its quite appropriate:

             “The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.”
           • Killinginthenameof 5.1.1.1.2.3

             5 August 2009 at 1:46 am

             Or how about the judge, just leave a word out you know, there is no difference between “guilty” and “not guilty”, its even a small word that is being left out!
6. Armchair Critic 6

   4 August 2009 at 9:23 pm

   It’s semantics, r0b, and you are stretching it on this one.
   Farrar is very much deserving of your contempt, but in this case you haven’t caught him, he is exaggerating rather than lying.
   The general point is that Labour and Clark did support Field much more and much longer than Field deserved. I hope Field gets a good long gaol sentence.
   Have Labour considered being “relaxed” about the whole thing? Seems to work for JK. And once Johnny lets Bennett-grad and the Double-Dipton drag on, the high ground will be someone else’s to take. Give him a month or two.
   • Killinginthenameof 6.1

     4 August 2009 at 10:02 pm

     I disagree.

     Exaggerating would be modifying a quote from say “I support X” to “I absolutely fully support X”. But when the starting point is “I maybe support X”, dropping the “maybe”, fundamentally changes the nature of the statement. Kind of like moving off the middle of a see-saw. Sure you might only take 1 step too the side, but taking 1 step to the side form the middle, is very different to taking 1 step to the side, when you are already 2 steps along.

     (note, I don’t support what he did, blah blah blah all that, as I’m sure someone, in my absence of saying I do not support him, will take my comment as meaning that I do)
   • Anita 6.2

     4 August 2009 at 10:08 pm

     Saying someone said something which they did not is lying. Putting something in quote marks which is not actually a quote is lying. Attributing to one person a quote said by someone else is lying.

     It’s lying when left wing bloggers do it, it’s lying when right wing bloggers do it.

     It’s lying.

     NB I acknowledge sometime’s it’s a straight forward cock-up or typo, those are easily acknowledged, apologised for and fixed.
     • Quoth the Raven 6.2.1

       4 August 2009 at 10:23 pm

       Exactly
       • Gordon Shumway 6.2.1.1

         4 August 2009 at 10:33 pm

         So what has Farrar done? Typo, cock-up, deliberate lie or sexing up an “innocuous statement”?

         (BTW, it is ridiculous to describe the quote – even when correct – as “innocuous”. The quote seems to be deliberate an calculated spin about a minister subject to very serious fraud allegations. “I think … probably” can only be interpreted as the PM saying that she has formed a view. Either the PM was relying on subsequently disproven facts when she weighed in, or else she had no facts and was reckless, or else she had all the facts and was deliberately misleading. No other interpretation of the quote is possible, so to describe it as “innocuous” is laughable. It is a very interesting quote given the circumstances at the time, the person who said it (and their political motivations), and the way events have transpired since.)
         • Quoth the Raven 6.2.1.1.1

           4 August 2009 at 10:44 pm

           Gordon – I don’t know why you are replying to my comment. I was only agreeing with Anita. What Farrar has done, all thoughts about the Field case aside, by putting in quotation marks something which is not a quote, is lying. Get it? Got it? Good!
           • Gordon Shumway 6.2.1.1.1.1

             5 August 2009 at 9:03 pm

             No – to decide that he is “lying” you are making a vast number of assumptions. There is no way you can decide this is a “lie”, as opposed to:

             1. truthful statement
             2. mistake
             3. inadvertent error

             etc.
     • Armchair Critic 6.2.2

       4 August 2009 at 10:47 pm

       Anita – Fair enough, point taken. I doubt DPF made a cock-up or typo in this case, I don’t expect to hear of an acknowledgement, apology or a fix. I just don’t share r0b’s sense of outrage, it doesn’t sit so well with the overall picture.
7. mike 7

   4 August 2009 at 9:25 pm

   The fact that you are trying to defend Helen Clarks handling of the TPF saga speaks for itself….
8. Gordon Shumway 8

   4 August 2009 at 9:27 pm

   Mickey the serious debate is impossible when the spin being run by Labour is that the Field situation is somehow analogous to the Worth one.

   Field has been convicted of serious criminal actions. The PM at the time the allegations were first raised wasted taxpayer money on a whitewash investigation with severely limited terms of reference. On the date that whitewash inquiry’s report was released, the PM said that Field might return as a MINISTER.

   Either the PM severly misread the report, misunderstood the situation or just made a fvcked decision.

   The attempt to somehow equate this sorry mess with Key’s flawed, but ultimately effective (and costless) removal of Worth is laughable.
   • Armchair Critic 8.1

     4 August 2009 at 9:39 pm

     GS – there is a relationship between the two. Both involve ministers who abused their powers, lost their ministerial warrants and their seats in parliament.
     The scandal with Worth is that we don’t have confirmation of what he did and we don’t know why he lost his warrant. We are forced to rely in speculation and innuendo. And that the PM who hid behind privacy for Dr Worth’s sake was “relaxed” a month or two later to have privacy blown out of the water for a couple of beneficiaries.
     • RedLogix 8.1.1

       4 August 2009 at 9:52 pm

       The PM at the time the allegations were first raised wasted taxpayer money on a whitewash investigation with severely limited terms of reference. On the date that whitewash inquiry’s report was released, the PM said that Field might return as a MINISTER.

       More Tory spin and lies. The terms of reference of the Ingram enquiry centered around a conflict of interest over the purchase of the Cole house. It was not a general fishing expedition. In the event it exonerated Field on that matter, but it was not so toothless as to uncover other matters of concern.

       At the point the PM was simply not pre-empting the outcome of further investigations.
       • Gordon Shumway 8.1.1.1

         4 August 2009 at 9:59 pm

         Rubbish Redlogix. The allegations were broad-ranging about fraud. The report’s terms of enquiry were carefully drawn up to make it sound much more boring and minor than what Taito has subsequently been convicted of.

         What reason – other than preventing political fallout – was there to limit the inquiry into anything short of “illegal activity by the Minister”? Why indeed was it necessary to first show illegality (as opposed to inethical conduct)?

         The PM was not standing by as an impartial observer and you know it. Don’t call me a liar. I know the report wasn’t a general fishing expedition (it SHOULD have been). It was drawn up to investigate one specific boring example in the hope that it would exonerate Taito (and Labour initially thought it did).

         The only reason the report was subsequently of any use at all was that an honourable member of the legal profession cleverly wrote it in such a way that he wouldn’t have his professional reputation permanently ruined through association.
         • RedLogix 8.1.1.1.1

           4 August 2009 at 10:15 pm

           It’s quite wrong to launch a political investigation into someone without specific terms of reference.

           It is rather creepy to think believe that the PM should have the power to launch a ‘broad ranging’ enquiry into anyone simply because of some as yet unproven allegations. What a dangerous tool that would be.
           • Gordon Shumway 8.1.1.1.1.1

             4 August 2009 at 10:40 pm

             You are being intentionally obtuse. You do not have to launch political enquiries of any type before you fire someone. There are other, less expensive, ways and means of gathering a case to fire someone (but that might not suit your political purposes, huh?)

             Terms of enquiry can be specific without referring to one incident or to a person’s “capacity as a minister”. Stop trying to channel big brother/1984 by using words such as “creepy”.

             Helen Clark missed one of her ministers comitting fraud on her watch. She called for an inquiry only under intense pressure from opposition parties to do so, and then she went public saying things like “I THINK the only thing he is PROBABLY guilty of is trying to be helpful to someone”.

             She got that pretty wrong, didn’t she?
     • Gordon Shumway 8.1.2

       4 August 2009 at 9:53 pm

       AC – I still don’t see the genuine connection, I’m afraid.

       Are you saying that the public has a right to know the PM’s thinking behind every appointment, reappointment, promotion, demotion, suspension etc of Ministers? If so, why? Do you expect this sort of full disclosure every time there’s a cabinet reshuffle?

       Surely it’s OK for the PM to get rid of someone BEFORE a criminal investigation is launched? Why does it matter to you if the affected party (Worth) is not suing for wrongful dismissal or taking some other action that could cost taxpayers money?

       Putting aside the above, it’s pretty obvious why Worth got pressured to leave – he was an embarassment to the government, the National party and the people of NZ. He was repeatedly engaged in activity that was on the margin and, if he hadn’t been stopped, there’s a real chance he might have ended up doing something criminal – just like Taito…!

       Every time Labour bangs on about Worth, the general public think “you mean the guy that National sacked?” Conversely, Taito is the bloke that Labour supported. There is no traction in reapeatedly asking “Why did he sack Worth?”. Everyone has a decent enough idea and the only reason you want to know is to help with politicking (which is the same reason Labour DIDN’T sack Taito straightaway).

       If HC had gotten rid of Taito and been prepared to ignore the inevitable “speculation and innuendo” that would have followed, the country would have been saved a lot of nonsense such as whitewash investigative reports and sanctimonious speechmaking from Cullen in support of a criminal.
       • RedLogix 8.1.2.1

         4 August 2009 at 10:33 pm

         Surely it’s OK for the PM to get rid of someone BEFORE a criminal investigation is launched?

         Muddled thinking. Key most certainly relieved Worth of his Ministerial warrant. That is most definitely a responsibility and right of the PM.

         But he could NOT ‘get rid of’ Worth from Parliament. There are only some relatively narrow and specific grounds on which someone can be dismissed as an MP. In the event Key was saved a lot of embarrasment because Worth resigned, but if he had not there really would have been nothing Key could have done about it.
         • Gordon Shumway 8.1.2.1.1

           4 August 2009 at 10:41 pm

           Correct. He clearly got pressured to leave. It happens all the time and it was clearly a good result for National and for New Zealand.
           • RedLogix 8.1.2.1.1.1

             4 August 2009 at 10:45 pm

             Sure in this case you can claim the moral high ground because Worth really did need to go, but what dangerous idea to believe that the PM has the right to pressure anyone out of Parliament.

             What a creepy closet fascist you are.
9. Brett Dale 9

   4 August 2009 at 10:00 pm

   So basically Helen Clark was covering her ass.

   Trying to tell her supporters that he was a helpful man, but saying the words probably and i think.

   Brian Edwards was a busy man that day.
10. Killinginthenameof 10

    4 August 2009 at 10:01 pm

    This would not be the first time that the KBR has believed a quote into existence. Just how many more will there be?
11. Armchair Critic 11

    4 August 2009 at 10:15 pm

    I’m afraid I can’t help you, then. I see strong parallels.
    I don’t see why the public doesn’t have the right to know about the reasoning behind appointments, reappointments etc. You ask why, I ask why not? Open government and all that. Admittedly, most of the time the reason for appointments will be obvious. Best suited person for the position for appointments, still the best person for the position for reappointments, proven performer capable of better for promotions and so forth.
    Putting the above aside, I agree everyone knows why Worth had to go, and I don’t have any issues with Worth or his departure from parliament (except that people say JK dismissed him. He did nothing but accept his resignation). My concern is that JK’s words and actions do not match – he tells us about open government and higher standards of accountability. I would like to see him to front up.
    As for politicking – I reread my first comment on this, is it really that pro-Labour? I think of myself as anti-National, rather than pro-Labour. If that constitutes politicking in your book, whatever. And you were the first to mention Dr Worth.
    • Armchair Critic 11.1

      4 August 2009 at 10:17 pm

      Meant as a reply to GS above
    • Gordon Shumway 11.2

      4 August 2009 at 10:22 pm

      AC – government would be unworkable if you have to have your every appointment, reappointment, demotion or promotion made public and second-guessed by the electorate.

      Again, neither the employer nor employee are taking legal action against each other, so why should anyone be able to demand that one of the parties explain the detail behind their thinking?

      If Worth were suing or the government was running expensive investigations, then yes, more info might be justified. But in the absence of that, why would anyone care? That’s all I meant about “politicking” – seeking the information is simply a fishing trip for political capital. The guy has been moved on at no cost to the taxpayer. Reason – the prime minister no longer wanted him there, so you can assume he lost the PM’s confidence.
      • Armchair Critic 11.2.1

        4 August 2009 at 10:38 pm

        Surely it is reasonable to provide an explanation if one is asked for. Most of the time no explanation would be asked for, so it would not be overly onerous. Exceptions for national security etc. of course.
        I never knew that legal action was the level required for a disclosure to be made. Nor did I know that the cost to the taxpayer of moving on was relevant. I thought it was about open government.
        • Pascal's bookie 11.2.1.1

          5 August 2009 at 7:34 am

          The only reason to not tell is to avoid political fallout. I think Worth went because he made an idiot out of Key, who instead of investigating the Choudary complaint just took Worth at his word. Worth had to go to coverup Key’s failure.
          • Gordon Shumway 11.2.1.1.1

            5 August 2009 at 12:48 pm

            It’s not the ONLY reason not to tell, but it’s certainly one of them. Others might include not wanting to line yourself up for being sued by an employee.

            Other than wanting to CREATE political fallout, what reason to you have for wanting the information? Simply saying “open government” without explaining why the benefits outweight the negatives doesn’t get you there.
            • Armchair Critic 11.2.1.1.1.1

              5 August 2009 at 1:08 pm

              You are not seriously suggesting that JK unfairly dismissed Worth, and that as a result Worth might sue? That would be a whole new can of worms.
              I couldn’t care either way about political fallout – I just want to know why Key lost confidence in Worth. Why do I need to give a reason for asking, I just want to know. My taxes pay (or paid) their salaries and allowances, their actions affect me directly, is that not enough? Benefits outweighing negatives can not be relevant to this instance, either.
            • Pascal's bookie 11.2.1.1.1.2

              5 August 2009 at 1:35 pm

              Worth was an MP, hounded out of parliament. Key wasn’t his employer.

              I’d like to know why he’s gone, I’d like to know what standard Key has for behaviour, and I’d like to be reassured that Worth did not, in fact, go to coverup for Key’s piss poor investigation.
            • Gordon Shumway 11.2.1.1.1.3

              5 August 2009 at 9:08 pm

              The last thing I want this country’s leaders to do (whether National or Labour) is to have every decision second-guessed by taxpayers who “simply want to know” and cannot even articulate why.

              Frankly, there are more important things to deal with than explaining why the PM has chosen to replace a member of his team in whom he’s obviously lost confidence.

              There’s “checks and balances” and then there’s over-the-top transparency obligations that don’t do anything to advance the public good. You’re getting wound up about the latter.
            • BLiP 11.2.1.1.1.4

              5 August 2009 at 9:17 pm

              But surely having the all the information on the table will round things out – any reasonable person can see that.
            • Gordon Shumway 11.2.1.1.1.5

              5 August 2009 at 9:28 pm

              Absolutely… I elect MP’s so that they can run every decision past you…

              Can you not see that a system of “elect the leaders then have checks and balances” does not mean you get to review every decision as you see fit? Try going in and asking to see all your employer’s emails because you want to check their decisions.

              The Worth thing has cost us nothing. It’s not decision that needs “rounding out” to you or anyone else. If the basis of every decision needed to be laid out on the table for no reason other than your entertainment (and you’re still not offering up any explanation why other than “I’d like to know”), then politicians would never get anything important done.

              What is your rule for disclosure, other than “I’d like to know”? The Official Information Act already contains a pretty comprehensive regime – is there something wrong with that?
            • Armchair Critic 11.2.1.1.1.6

              5 August 2009 at 9:31 pm

              GS – And the last thing taxpayers want is a PM who is incapable of a simple, honest explanation. I like your bit about checks and balances – there have been none in the Worth incident, and that’s what I take issue with. I don’t care what Worth did, I care that the PM is too inarticulate to answer a simple question, or has something to hide.
            • Pascal's bookie 11.2.1.1.1.7

              5 August 2009 at 10:01 pm

              GS, a couple of points, Key (and till recently Worth) are our employees.

              What a minister does to deserve being driven out of parliament, (not just cabinet) is very much a matter of public concern.

              Let’s say Worth was on the take as a hypothetical. Key confronts him asking for a cut. Worth says ‘fuck off John, find your own patsies’. Key sacks him because he lost confidence in him.

              You could rightly say that that is nonsense and did not happen, but you are saying that we don’t have any reason to want to know. We do in fact.

              As I said above, there is a public interest in knowing why Ministers get sacked, and more-so why MP’s get driven out of parliament. We don’t have many formal checks on the executive, most of our checks are political. That requires openness because if the public can’t see the reasons, they can’t judge them.

              Your strawman about wanting to second guess every little decision misses the fact that an elected MP was railroaded out of parliament, because the PM for some reason didn’t want him in there anymore. That is no small thing.

              If that railroading was legitimate, then what was Worth doing, and has it been sorted? but we don’t know if it was legitimate, do we? We are only allowed to guess, and assume.
            • Armchair Critic 11.2.1.1.1.8

              5 August 2009 at 10:26 pm

              “Try going in and asking to see all your employer’s emails because you want to check their decisions.”
              GS – Conversely, try stopping your employer going through all your emails because they want to check your decisions as their employee. As PB pointed out, the relationship the voting public have with politicians is closer to voters as employers and politicians as employees than the other way around.
              Again, as a voter I have the right to know. I had a look through the OIA (it seemed likely to be the most pertinent Act), there is nothing about having to give a reason for wanting explanation. Why do you keep suggesting a reason for asking is needed?
12. Gordon Shumway 12

    4 August 2009 at 10:16 pm

    So let me get this straight, you’re getting wound up because Farrar left out “I think” and “probably”. Fair enough, but pretty minor stuff really – the reason the quote is repeated is because it shows what way HC was trying to spin things at the time. (I’d also question whether Farrar’s omission was “deliberate lie”, as the original poster claims.)

    On the other hand, the HC quote annoys the fvck out of me because of the following:

    1. If the PM was genuinely standing on the sidelines and impartially waiting for the facts to emerge, why did she attempt to sway the public attitude in favour of Taito by making this comment? Any explanation, anyone?

    2. What facts/information did the PM rely on before making such a supportive statement if favour of someone who was then subject to Parliamentary investigation? How could the PM have gotten it so wrong when the bloke is subsequently convicted of multiple counts of fraud?
    • RedLogix 12.1

      4 August 2009 at 10:26 pm

      why did she attempt to sway the public attitude in favour of Taito by making this comment? Any explanation, anyone?

      Loyalty, even if it was later proved misplaced.

      How could the PM have gotten it so wrong when the bloke is subsequently convicted of multiple counts of fraud?

      Because we now have the benefit of hindsight. Recall that it took the Police many, many months to investigate, the trial was exceptionally long and the jury took over 20 hours to deliberate. Field himself was deeply convinced of his innocence. Ingram had exonerated him on one set of allegations. This was not an open and shut case.
      • Gordon Shumway 12.1.1

        4 August 2009 at 10:46 pm

        “Loyalty” is not good enough for #1. These were incredibly serious allegations and blind loyalty – including making this type of supportive statement – is exactly what you guys were mauling Key for in the early stages of the Worth affair. Let’s remember, of course, that the Worth misdeads are significantly less serious that what Taito’s been convicted of.

        Your answer to 2 just shows that we’ll never convince each other…! You realise, don’t you, that criminal conviction requires that “beyond all reasonable doubt” a person is a criminal? Are you saying that ministers should only get fired if they fall foul of that standard…?!
        • RedLogix 12.1.1.1

          4 August 2009 at 10:59 pm

          Let’s remember, of course, that the Worth misdeads are significantly less serious that what Taito’s been convicted of.

          Well that’s just the problem isn’t it? We really don’t know what Worth’s misdeeds are do we? So how can we judge their relative seriousness?

          As it plays out, the kind of sexual harrasment and bullying that he appears to have escaped charges on (and recall that less than 10% of sexual offences ever reach Court) are in my book every bit as serious, no, far more serious, than Field’s relatively stupid little folly. At best Field personally benefited by only a few thousands. Worth was a nasty predator.

          Are you saying that ministers should only get fired if they fall foul of that standard ?!

          Field had ALREADY been stood down as Minister. That as I have already pointed out was the full and proper extent of HC’s powers.
          • Gordon Shumway 12.1.1.1.1

            5 August 2009 at 12:51 pm

            Red – you are seriously arguing that Worth and Field are on the same plane? That is deranged. One has been convicted, one has not even been charged. This is what I meant when I said that serious debate is impossible on Field because of Labour attempts to spin some sort of equivalence between Field and Worth. There is none.

            Time to call me a fascist again.
            • burt 12.1.1.1.1.1

              5 August 2009 at 2:19 pm

              Hell Worth didn’t even get the magical ‘prima facie case not in the public interest to prosecute’ badge of honor from the police. He can’t have done much wrong if the special nudge-nudge wink wink wording for ‘We will not upset our political masters by charging’ were not used.
13. Whaleoil 13

    4 August 2009 at 10:22 pm

    Since I have been called a liar I deserve the right to prove once again that I am not.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10441505&pnum=0

    The quote from Clark is right there in Quote marks.

    “I think the only thing he is probably guilty of is trying to be helpful to someone”. – Helen Elizabeth Clark
    • lprent 13.1

      4 August 2009 at 10:46 pm

      Bullshit. What you referenced is a quote by Bill English (that other well known bludger)

      National’s deputy leader, Bill English, reminded Parliament that Miss Clark had once defended her former MP by saying “I think the only thing he is probably guilty of is trying to be helpful to someone”.

      Bill was of course misquoting on purpose… It is inaccurate – in fact I’d say it was a lie. Just like his statements about The Standard in early 2008. Just like your statements at the time
      • Deciduous 13.1.1

        5 August 2009 at 5:33 am

        What did Clark say then?
      • Doh 13.1.2

        5 August 2009 at 2:13 pm

        Okay now Im confused

        r0b is adamant Clarks exact words were;
        “I think the only thing he is probably guilty of is trying to be helpful to someone’

        Iprent quotes Bill English repeating Clark as saying;
        “I think the only thing he is probably guilty of is trying to be helpful to someone’.

        Iprent then says “Bill was of course misquoting on purpose It is inaccurate in fact I’d say it was a lie’

        Is r0b lying as well?
        • lprent 13.1.2.1

          5 August 2009 at 3:23 pm

          Fool. I didn’t quote it.

          I pointed out that Whale was being his usual inaccurate self. It was what was quoted in the newspaper article that Whale linked to as being the correct quote. I then pointed out that he was totally inaccurate. It wasn’t a quote of Helen, it was a quote from Bill English. It was Bill inaccurately paraphrasing Helen in his usual misquoting style. Hardly surprising. This is after all the dork who still hasn’t apologized for saying that the NZLP ran this site rather than me in a press statement. Hardly a paragon known for his accuracy…

          I’ve seen links to the correct statements in comments and to the source for those. Why not get unconfused (and less lazy) and dig them out by looking for them. You certainly appear not to have read my comment? Have difficulties with the written word perhaps. The residual TIA is made for you….
          • Doh 13.1.2.1.1

            5 August 2009 at 7:43 pm

            Gee you really want to re-read what I said – Your both quoting exactly the same sentence numbnuts

            The ‘quote’ you point out is exactly the same. If Bill is inaccurately paraphrasing Helen “in his usual misquoting style”, as you claim there is no difference between what Bill is paraphrasing, and what r0b is quoting as correct

            take a look because it appears you have made a fool of yourself in your haste to jump in
14. outofbed 14

    4 August 2009 at 10:49 pm

    WTF is Blubber on about ?
15. The Voice of Reason 15

    4 August 2009 at 10:53 pm

    Dunno ’bout a liar, but you’ve proved yourself an idiot, pal.

    The quote from the Herald:

    National’s deputy leader, Bill English, reminded Parliament that Miss Clark had once defended her former MP by saying “I think the only thing he is probably guilty of is trying to be helpful to someone”.

    The Dipton Dipper’s quote, not Helen Clark’s. Back to the aquarium, guppy.
    • burt 15.1

      4 August 2009 at 11:01 pm

      I thought the quote was;

      Dr Michael Cullen: “After all, the fundamental fault Mr Field committed was to work too hard on behalf of the many, many hundreds of people who come to his electorate office on immigration matters.’
16. burt 16

    4 August 2009 at 10:54 pm

    rOb

    I don’t think you are one to preach about how quotes should be used with integrity.
17. Ed 17

    4 August 2009 at 11:05 pm

    You do have to wonder about Farrar’s lack of ethics and honesty sometimes – but we should be fair to him and ask whether rather than his incompetence he has just been relying on his staff – is he really unethical and dishonest or just a poor manager and sloppy in checking material before he posts it?
18. Ianmac 18

    4 August 2009 at 11:22 pm

    The good thing about Field’s conviction is that he was not above the law and must pay.
    The sad thing is his being the first NZ MP to be so convicted.
19. vibenna 19

    4 August 2009 at 11:40 pm

    Okay, so that’s clear. The Standard is not concerned about Philip Field’s behavior as a minister and an MP, so we can expect to see more of the same under the next Labour gummint, then?

    Have I got that right?

    [lprent: No – you are just yet another moronic troll who hasn’t bothered to read the Policy. Read the section about why people attributing a mind to a machine are morons who barely have enough brains to run their autonomic functions.

    That probably explains why you’re crapping on the site. Insufficient brains to control your sphincter.

    Read it and learn fast, or this will be one of the few comments that you ever leave here. That dickhead neo-lib ‘debating’ practice of posing and answering your own question is one of my troll targeting behaviours]
    • TightyRighty 19.1

      5 August 2009 at 8:51 am

      Touchy Touchy Lprent, could Vibenna have a point? and if Vibenna does, is it sore?
      • lprent 19.1.1

        5 August 2009 at 1:32 pm

        Nope. I didn’t really look at his comment. It is a two distinct styles of troll behaviour that I saw. Both are are designed to give plausible deniability.

        One was to attribute a mind to the program that runs the site. That is avoidance of confrontation behaviour (I didn’t say who I was attacking…).

        The other is having a conversation with themselves. I usually describe it as wanking or jerking off. It also avoids having to deal with others and is also avoidance behaviour.

        I always land on them like a ton of bricks if I see it – in a confrontational style. Because both indicate that the person isn’t capable of contributing to the discussion here.

        Both seem to be favourites of neo-lib trolls. I guess that they either get trained in them or they have personalities that are inadequete to deal with confrontation.
    • Gordon Shumway 19.2

      5 August 2009 at 12:54 pm

      Lyn – to call that a “dickhead neo-lib” debating practice is pretty unfair given the number of times it’s used on both sides. It’s pretty much an example of the “tosspot liberal ‘debating’ practice” of name-calling, yeah?

      [lprent: Get the name correct. Lyn is my partner and she doesn’t have anything to do with this blog. My name is Lynn. I realise this is probaably confusing to the feeble minded…]
      • lprent 19.2.1

        5 August 2009 at 1:45 pm

        I notice the propensity of different types of trolling that I crush. That particular one is used far more frequently by the neo-libs (ie actoids) than the neo-cons, conservatives, centerists, lefties, greenies, rabid left, or sewer residents.

        When I see it in use, I can almost predict exactly what the persons topics of interest will be, It is a very distinct style of trolling. Much as the sewer residents are addicted to capitals and punctuation.
        • TightyRighty 19.2.1.1

          5 August 2009 at 8:44 pm

          That you crush? come on, pointing out the site policy and being offensive to people whose disabilities may include lack of sphincter control is hardly crushing. insensitive maybe, crushing noooooo
      • Gordon Shumway 19.2.2

        5 August 2009 at 9:14 pm

        and “n” – that fixes the typo.

        Thanks for the “feeble mind” call – sort of confirms the “tosspot liberal ‘debating’ practice” theory mentioned above.
20. ben 20

    4 August 2009 at 11:44 pm

    You total bloody hypocrites. Get some decency, for christ’s sake.
    • Luxated 20.1

      5 August 2009 at 2:47 am

      I think you’ll find attached to that article a scanned copy of a newspaper where Key says exactly what IB said he did.

      So how is complaining about someone misquoting the same as what IB did?

      You’ll also note that the two articles (this one and IB’s) are written by different people, its almost akin to someone complaining when two Herald columnist contradicting each other (even though there is no contradiction here).
      • ben 20.1.1

        5 August 2009 at 9:06 am

        What I note is that the article was selectively quoted from to give the impression Key wanted wages lowered. That was obviously incorrect and an interpretation made possible only by some highly selective quoting.

        What’s your point? That leaving out other sentences which turn the quote on its head is a-ok, but leaving out words in the same sentence is grossly unethical?

        Please.

        If I was just a bit less lazy I’m sure I could dig up examples of The Standard selectively quoting within sentences as well. This whole high horse routine from the Standard could hardly be richer. What’s sad is your transparent desperation.
        • Pascal's bookie 20.1.1.1

          5 August 2009 at 1:03 pm

          “That leaving out other sentences which turn the quote on its head is a-ok, but leaving out words in the same sentence is grossly unethical?”

          Nah, the other sentences confirm that Key would rather see real wages drop than workers get pay rises to counteract inflation.
        • Tim Ellis 20.1.1.2

          5 August 2009 at 1:23 pm

          ben to be fair I don’t think you can blame the standard for this. This is just a couple of posters at the standard doing a fonzie routine. Other posters don’t descend to their level, and the most egregious post I’ve seen recently was r0b’s “defence” of Labour’s handling of Mr Field. r0b isn’t a regular poster.
          • lprent 20.1.1.2.1

            5 August 2009 at 1:26 pm

            Reminds me, I must offer rOb a login again.

            Good posts…..
          • burt 20.1.1.2.2

            5 August 2009 at 1:29 pm

            lprent

            Yes I think you should offer rOb a login. He is indeed one of the most reliable defenders of Labour party corruption that you could have on your team.
          • r0b 20.1.1.2.3

            5 August 2009 at 2:02 pm

            the most egregious post I’ve seen recently was r0b’s “defence’ of Labour’s handling of Mr Field. r0b isn’t a regular poster.

            Gosh – you know – I think I’d remember making a post like that. Hang on, let me check. Nope – didn’t happen.

            Tim has passed beyond mere lies and appears to have become simply delusional.

            In all genuine concern for your health Tim, why not take a bit of a break from blogging and go take a walk in the fresh air. Clear your head a bit.
            • felix 20.1.1.2.3.1

              5 August 2009 at 2:33 pm

              I’ve seen a few comments lately suggesting a possible drug-related reason for his increasingly delusional behaviour.

              I must say, it fits with his apparent ability to blog all day and still find time at night to do his auditing work.

              For the record, I’m not judging him on it. I see it as a medical problem, not a criminal one.
21. psychotherapist 21

    5 August 2009 at 2:47 am

    iprents a tosser
    • Deciduous 21.1

      5 August 2009 at 5:34 am

      And you Sir are a moronic characiature of a troll.
22. wreck 22

    5 August 2009 at 8:30 am

    How can you say this? Helen and cronies were protecting Fields to the bitter end.

    Labour acted disgracefully.

    Just because you’re a lefty, it doesn’t mean you have to support corruption despite the tendencies to do so.
23. Tim Ellis 23

    5 August 2009 at 8:35 am

    I think you owe Mr Farrar an apology r0b. As he points out today he has a reliable source for this quote, and shows that he did not manufacture or alter it. The NZPA source may not be absolutely correct, but it does not alter the substance of the quote in any significant way or the charges against Mr Field, and refutes your claim of Mr Farrar’s dishonesty.
    • r0b 23.1

      5 August 2009 at 9:25 am

      Now Tim, you made me put on my waders and go and read Kiwiblog. Gosh I seem to have made DPF cross! That’s just going to ruin my day.

      I’ll not be apologising to DPF at all. My post was perfectly correct – if he can’t produce the source he is deliberately lying. And although he got closer, he hasn’t produced the source. It became a lie as soon as he put quote marks around what was obviously not a quote, attributing to Helen Clark words that she did not speak. And it’s part of a pattern of such lying by right wing bloggers, as noted in the original post.

      So David can suck it up I’m afraid. If calling him on his lies makes him cross then I look forward to the next opportunity!
      • Deciduous 23.1.1

        5 August 2009 at 9:34 am

        You’re splitting hairs r0b, it seems that Taito was defended to the end by the top dogs in Labour for the benefit of a few votes and to the detriment of the aliens Taito ripped off.
      • Tim Ellis 23.1.2

        5 August 2009 at 9:39 am

        Didn’t think you would apologise r0b. You’ve tried to smear Mr Farrar. Not very successfully and in the process you have diminished your own credibility as it’s shown you’re a dishonest semantic. Politics of distraction, anyone?

        The quote doesn’t change the substance of the story, but trust you to focus on the most trivial element. As Mr Farrar says, you’re a lying sycophant. Since you don’t have the guts to apologise I’m calling you a coward as well.
        • Pascal's bookie 23.1.2.1

          5 August 2009 at 9:45 am

          “The quote doesn’t change the substance of the story”

          Yes it does, In one quote Clark is describing the world, in the other she is describing the state of her mind. When you say you think something, you are describing your belief.

          Yes the difference is semantic, but that’s the study of what words mean.
          • r0b 23.1.2.1.1

            5 August 2009 at 9:48 am

            Actually PB the point is that one is a quote from Clark, and the other isn’t, it’s a reporter’s summary that DPF put quote marks around and tried to pass off as a quote from Clark.
          • Tim Ellis 23.1.2.1.2

            5 August 2009 at 9:48 am

            The NZPA story that Mr Farrar points to doesn’t make the distinction between a belief and the state of the world, and in any case, when it’s the prime minister’s belief, for the purposes of determining Mr Field’s political prospects (which was what the whole story was about), then that is the state of the world for all intents. Expressing her belief showed a determined bias on the outcome.
            • Pascal's bookie 23.1.2.1.2.1

              5 August 2009 at 9:56 am

              “The NZPA story that Mr Farrar points to doesn’t make the distinction between a belief and the state of the world”

              It makes the same mistake then. It doesn’t put quote marks around what DPF ‘quoted’ either.

              The rest is just weird arse solipsism. Clark’s state of mind is a fact of the world, but it doesn’t determine the world. That’s what we have investigations and court cases for.
            • Deciduous 23.1.2.1.2.2

              5 August 2009 at 9:59 am

              So, are you denying that Clark made that comment either absolutely or in summary?

              I think she did, amd you guys are trying to cover it up.
            • Tim Ellis 23.1.2.1.2.3

              5 August 2009 at 10:05 am

              I’m sorry, PB, but when it came to Mr Field’s political future, the only determining factor was the Prime Minister’s state of mind.

              You don’t know whether the NZPA story makes the same mistake. Ms Clark could have said slightly different things to different news sources. The quote that Mr Farrar used was a legitimate reflection of what appeared in the NZPA story. The NZPA story asserts what the PM said. There is no evidence that the PM’s office objected to the characterisation of what the PM said. Unlike, for example, the way John Key objected to the way a newspaper quoted him as saying he would love to see wages drop (which didn’t stop numerous commenters and posters here at the Standard quoting it ad infinitum).

              As for investigations and court cases, you may recall that Ms Clark said after the Ingram inquiry, there was no need for any further investigation. The results of the subsequent police investigation and the court case proved her wrong, after the fact. It doesn’t change the point that Labour MPs, including Ms Clark, were defending Mr Field after the Ingram inquiry came out.

              It was in retrospect a good thing that the police picked up what was in the Ingram inquiry (very serious allegations) and decided to investigate. If they hadn’t, it is very likely that Mr Field would have returned to Ms Clark’s ministry, since she was not interested in pursuing further inquiries into the issue.
            • Pascal's bookie 23.1.2.1.2.4

              5 August 2009 at 10:21 am

              I’m sorry Tim, but I don’t think you can put something in quote marks relying on a source that deliberatly chose not to do that.

              It’s not a difficult call.
        • r0b 23.1.2.2

          5 August 2009 at 9:46 am

          The quote doesn’t change the substance of the story

          I completely expect that attitude from you Tim, given your repeated lies on this blog, and your attitude that the truth is just “semantics” or “pedantic”.

          Since you don’t have the guts to apologise I’m calling you a coward as well.

          Well gosh – could my day get any worse?
          • Tim Ellis 23.1.2.2.1

            5 August 2009 at 9:50 am

            r0b you really are a tosser and a pretty disgusting one at that. You and Eddie have shot your credibility to hell on this issue.
            • burt 23.1.2.2.1.1

              5 August 2009 at 9:58 am

              Tim

              rOb will defend anything from Labour and then in the next sentence attack National for the same thing. I think it is a disease he has so we should cut him some slack.
        • burt 23.1.2.3

          5 August 2009 at 9:57 am

          rOb asks;

          Could my day get any worse…

          Next question; Is Taito Field now going to reveal who knew what and when. He has nothing to loose… might as well spill his guts now….

          So yes – it could easily get worse – much worse.
24. LiberalismIsFascism 24

    5 August 2009 at 8:47 am

    What a load of rubbish gets written on this blog. I’m with DPF on this one. Typical that the first politician that gets convicted of corruption is from the Labour Party. Workers party my ass.
25. graham 25

    5 August 2009 at 8:48 am

    i heard her say it on the radio before the 2005 election and now the kiwiblog can prove it are you going to say sorry.
    dont matter look at the polls
26. graham 26

    5 August 2009 at 8:53 am

    please keep this website going .along with phil goff this is nationals greatest assets
    • Luke H 26.1

      5 August 2009 at 11:58 am

      Graham, that is so true. The moronic, mouth-frothingly incoherent spin that is a regular feature of this site is a great demonstrator of how desperate the Left are now that they have been toppled from power.
27. ben 27

    5 August 2009 at 9:08 am

    You’re a disgrace.

    Farrar was not lying. Apologise.
28. Winston Smith 28

    5 August 2009 at 9:24 am

    He who controls the past controls the future.

    rOb – your revisionist approach to history is commendable – almost as entertaining as Fast Eddie’s “Good on Clark for sacking him as a minister when the allegations first came out.”

    There’s the rub: Clark didn’t sack him when the allegations first came out.

    Nor did she sack him when the Ingram enquiry was released (the same day incidentally on which Clark indicated that Field is not barred from returning to a Ministerial role, and the same day that Dr Cullen touts Field as a wonderful MP whose only problem was he cared too much for his constituents – the same ones he has been found guilty of exploiting and defrauding.)

    Nor did she sack him on 24 August when she said that the government has not been embarrassed by the Field affair. Nor when the police announced they were investigating.

    Any fair and impartial observer will see that Clark, Cullen and co defended Phillip Field to the bitter end.

    Clearly Clark’s “I think…” and “probably…” are incidental to her and her administration’s support for Field’s actions. David Farrar’s comments adequately reflect the circumstances and tenor of Labour’s support for a fraudulent and corrupt member of its cabinet and your efforts to harpoon him reflect on your own inadequacies as a historical revisionist.

    Field is a corrupt, exploitative fraud. Apologise and get over it.
    • Deciduous 28.1

      5 August 2009 at 9:30 am

      Well, he does have point. Must be an upstanding citizen from Hawkes Bay who doesn’t hold with lying.
29. infused 29

    5 August 2009 at 9:58 am

    haha I love this place.

    Stop your ‘guest’ posts. This place is turning in to a laughing stock.
30. vibenna 30

    5 August 2009 at 10:31 am

    lprent said: “… you are just yet another moronic troll who hasn’t bothered to read the Policy. Read the section about why people attributing a mind to a machine are morons who barely have enough brains to run their autonomic functions.That probably explains why you’re crapping on the site. Insufficient brains to control your sphincter. Read it and learn fast, or this will be one of the few comments that you ever leave here. That dickhead neo-lib ‘debating’ practice of posing and answering your own question is one of my troll targeting behaviours.”

    So I read the policy, and it said: “What we’re not prepared to accept are personal attacks, or tone or language that has the effect of excluding others”.

    Go figure.

    [lprent: Moderators aren’t mentioned in that. It is about commentators. The moderators use all of those things to drive off the trolls (and we relish it). ]
    • ben 30.1

      5 August 2009 at 11:12 am

      What is it with the Standard and hypocrisy? Just can’t help themselves. Says a hell of a lot about personal integrity that they could so frequently contradict themselves.

      Yes, we can see the pattern, Standard folks. We see you. We’re not stupid.
    • TC 30.2

      5 August 2009 at 5:59 pm

      vibenna – it’s the old case of all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
    • SHG 30.3

      5 August 2009 at 6:48 pm

      “Moderators aren’t mentioned in that. It is about commentators.”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold
31. DavidW 31

    5 August 2009 at 10:52 am

    I think thats a “GOTCHA” Vibenna. Good onya
32. darryl 32

    5 August 2009 at 12:01 pm

    Two days of comedy gold. Thank you!
33. TC 33

    5 August 2009 at 12:15 pm

    It’s OK Standardites – denial is a perfectly acceptable coping mechanism – you are not alone – lots of other 5 year olds use it – they also stamp their feet and throw their toys.
34. grumpy 34

    5 August 2009 at 12:27 pm

    Looks as if this is going to get MUCH bigger with Field supporters now saying we have only seen the tip of the iceberg.

    If they start naming names, then Labour is in deep trouble. Clark wasn’t just trying to shield Field, it’s the rest of the mob in the gun now.
    • ROFLcopter 34.1

      5 August 2009 at 12:44 pm

      I’m already stocking up on popcorn, the matinee session is going to be fun
35. Swampy 35

    5 August 2009 at 11:04 pm

    If this is the only mistake you can find in Farrar’s well detailed and researched post you are really losing it. Funny the Labour Party doesn’t want to comment at all on this subject.
    • BLiP 35.1

      5 August 2009 at 11:07 pm

      Nor does ACT, except when they are cornered like rats by the media.
      • Clint Heine 35.1.1

        6 August 2009 at 10:17 pm

        BLIP – care to expand on that? Or are you going to come up with some Standardista double talk too?
        • Armchair Critic 35.1.1.1

          6 August 2009 at 10:24 pm

          Perhaps BLiP was referring to Roger Douglas saying “bugger the recession, I am entitled to travel subsidies”, or words to that effect. And no one from ACT saying anything else.
          I’m almost starting to miss the perk-busting side of Rodney.

Links to post

1. Let that be a lesson to you all « Life and Politics: posted on 5 August 2009 at 10:20 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS