The police looked at the complaints and walked away from it because too much time had passed for them to prosecute. They only had a six month window from the time the party returns were filed with the details of the donation not declared.

If Helen had said “Actually I know that Winston is being dishonest” at the time Winston held up his “NO” sign then it would have been a different matter.

You defended Helen not disclosing what she knew when Peters was telling lies and she knew that he was telling lies. Yet you think Key should have spilled the beans immediately on Worth…..

History appears to be being re-written but I don’t think I’m the one re-writing it. I’m just being consistent when there are allegations of breaking the law by MP’s they should be tested in court. The Police using their “not in the public interest’ discretion opens the door for speculation of political interference in the judicial process.

What would you say if the Police turn around and say “not in the public interest’ over this case lprent ?

Crap.

If it’d been intentional (ie the mens rea required to prove any charge) then it would have been up for some serious charges from the police. Fraud, corruption etc. That is what the morons in the sewer (and yourself) profess. Those don’t require anything more than a complaint. As was made to the SFO and triggered their investigation.

The police looked at complaints and walked away from it because they couldn’t see any evidence. There was barely enough to even look at the mens actus component of a case. If they’d had evidence to lay credible charges, then that is what they would have done.

As you are probably aware, I’m not a great fan of the NZ Police. However they do their job (something that Brash appears to have problems understanding), and their job is to find the evidence to make a case. With WP and NZF they didn’t find anything like enough for a charge.

So the only ‘court’ that it was put in front of was a mickey-mouse political and partisan one – the privileges committee. It is the least credible in the country. It was clear from the start there that the evidence was irrelevant. It was the political exposure that was important.

That is why Rodney spent all his time trying to get his latest suntan version in camera all of the time by siting behind the witnesses. It was a travesty of justice – trial by pre-determined lynching.

Pity that you didn’t show that respect for due process with NZF and WP

I always supported seeing Winston dragged into court to defend the allegations against him. Once it got to the point that legally (due to the time limitations on the crimes involved ) the privileges committee was the last bastion of justice for a career littered with allegations of dodgyness – of course I pounced on it, as did many. Taking a strict legal stance that Winston has done nothing wrong is one side of an ethical debate, and not the side I take.

So are you saying that the police and the courts are the correct way of handling things? That is not what you said last year?

Perhaps you’d better explain yourself more clearly. Otherwise we’d have to start questioning your situational ethics.

The politics (as rOb says) are just fallout and run at much lower levels of evidence. I’m sure that this will hurt the NACT government – as much as anything else from the (what was it?) three strikes that Key had with Worth prior to this fiasco, that he didn’t take.

Now we should get a chance to see a real National candidate in Epsom……. Maybe Rodney should watch out

Tell me again how parliament knew more about the law regarding use of tax payers money for election advertising than the Auditor-General did rOb. Tell me how it was right to call it a bad call and validate it.

Oh Burt, stop trying to twist my words, it’s pathetic. I was referring to political consequences, obviously, not legal ones.

Do you think consequences for breaking the law should rest with the PM or the police and the courts?

If it is the police and the courts then perhaps you could explain why the allegations of breaking the law made by the Auditor-General were said to be rubbish by the PM and never tested in court?

If you can put aside your opinion of me long enough to honestly answer that question it would be much appreciated?

So you are not disputing that the consequences of breaking the law should rest with the police and the courts rather than the PM as stated by rOb?

All other distractions about my position aside – are you disputing that key point?

He has even been known to state that the police will not lay charges against anyone who is a member of the Labour Party.

It really is a fascinating world under burt’s bridge.

The trickle feed today from the Nats is really poor PR

That tells me most of what I need to know about the assertions made by you and the other members of the lynching society – you are a pack of bullshitting fools who have no regard for either evidence or due process. That is despite me having no time for either NZF or WP.

In short, I think that you are a contemptuous hypocrite (bearing in mind your other statements here about waiting for the police) with no respect for the law.

For instance your statement below reeks of hypocrisy

Ah no rOb, that may have been how it worked under Labour, under National it should be for the police and the courts to sort out further consequences.

Pity that you didn’t show that respect for due process with NZF and WP

I’m not defending WP, just challenging whether the privileges committee is an impartial arbiter of fact.

When listing all the things that make me believe that WP’s behaviour is wrong I wouldn’t list the privileges committee decision.