Written By:
all_your_base - Date published:
1:07 pm, September 11th, 2008 - 36 comments
Categories: labour -
Tags: glenn, williams, winebox, winston peters
With an almost Winston-esqe turn of phrase Owen Glenn has labelled Labour Party president Mike Williams an “unmitigated falsifier of veracity”.
Yet Glen himself has claimed that he was offered a cabinet post (cough), that he donated money to Labour because of the Exclusive Brethren’s involvement in National’s campaign (timing doesn’t work), that Labour Party President Mike Williams bribed voters in South Auckland with KFC (I’ve heard it was actually BK), asked him for a job as an administrator (pardon?) and turned up on his boat uninvited (there’s contrary email evidence).
Confused? Liar? To me it sounds like Glenn enjoys a good yarn – complete with the requisite embellishments and flourishes that have been getting Kiwi blokes and their mates in the crap for years. Maybe once the dust has settled Williams and Glenn will again be able to share a beer.
In the meantime I’d be far more interested to know why an ex-winebox lawyer would be working for Glenn pro bono.
The current rise of populism challenges the way we think about people’s relationship to the economy.We seem to be entering an era of populism, in which leadership in a democracy is based on preferences of the population which do not seem entirely rational nor serving their longer interests. ...
The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.
ex winebox lawyer or expert witness in tax law?
at least make an effort to have a grain of truth in your smears.
I have seen Harley and Glenn together in Auckland Uni alumni photos, so they could be chums in a non-conspiracy sense.
all_your_base, are you Winston?
When you have two conflicting stories you look at the motivation behind them. Glenn has no reason to lie, Clark and Williams on the other hand……….
So Greg, if Glenn had no motivation to lie, why, for example, did he make it up that Williams turned up uninvited earlier this year? Or name the EB as the reason for a donation, when it hadn’t come to light at that time?
That line of reasoning only works when someone hasn’t been proven to be saying things that are ‘inconsistent’.
Nope Billy, I’m old enough to be Winston’s father and prefer I Speyside malts. We’re both snappy dressers though.
The last Winston supporter, The Standard, Sept 11, 2008. One for the history books.
Billy – I’m Winston. And you write on my blog (which is funded from secret racing donations). You should be ashamed of yourself.
‘sod, I am. Daily.
Biting the hand who feeds you?
Yes, that appears to be a great personality trait of all socialists.
Santi, we are all aware that the National Party is much more deferential to it’s donors. No Brash No cash.
“barnsleybill
September 11, 2008 at 1:12 pm
ex winebox lawyer or expert witness in tax law?
at least make an effort to have a grain of truth in your smears.”
Its not a smear, a smear would me be calling you a rapist (unless I happened to be right). Anyway, smears is last months meme, get with the program.
Perhaps we can now use this phrase when talking about the Prime ministers support for her cabinet;
“No fellon, No Helen”
You could Crank, but it wouldn’t make sense.
Did Mike Williams offer his resignation earlier this year after he’d been caught lying?
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/04/mike_williams_caught_lying_-_again.html
Crank is good at making it up.
The No Brash No Cash moniker was actually used by his supporters at the time.
What could poor old Simon English ( good to see the elocution lessons have seen him back near the top)offer instead.
However the chance of Key offering cabinet positions to convicted MPs Nick Smith and Gerry ‘brownshirt’ Brownlee would be intersting
I dnon’t think harley was a winebox lawyer – as in arguing the case – but in fact an expert witness.
Considering the winebox participants and FR lost every substantive question that went to the courts their ‘expert’ witnesses should have paid their fees back
Considering the winebox participants and FR lost every substantive question that went to the courts
But, but, but Hooten says the opposite. Though to be fair he openly admits that he posts about things he doesn’t know anything about.
GWW
You make the assertion that having convicted MPs in cabinet would be a novelty in NZ ….. sadly that is not the case.
Assault during a public election meeting and inteferring with a complainant DURING a court case arent the norm are they?
PB, be warned Hooton is a self confessed stalker. I would avoid posting on his blog if you value your anonymity.
Something about this “smells”. Possible setup. ho hum
GWW
No however screeching at each other across a debating chamber and avoiding simple questions does appear to be.
Sadly assault and associated behaviours during public political meetings is not unusual for NZ and has occurred a number of times, we can also add convicted drunk driving, fisticuffs outside the debating chamber and a number of other examples of poor behaviour which I’d like our MPs not to be associated with.
Perhaps it’s just me but sometimes I think the standard of our MPs is getting worse the older I get (probably me just getting more grumpy though).
captch – executives suck
screeching !! Quelle horreur
Sheesh a_y_b – your allegations are almost verbatim to those made in the House at QT this afternoon – inside information eh 😉
HS: It sounds like I’m a fair bit younger than you (young enough to still have a student loan!) and I’ve been to the chamber a couple of times and come away disgusted every time (Barring Nandors valedictorian, actually. That was quite special).
I don’t think it’s just you.
Nope Billy, I’m old enough to be Winston’s father and prefer I Speyside malts. We’re both snappy dressers though.
I wouldn’t have thought anyone older than Winston would have known about the all your base are belong to us thing. National’s billboards are almost as bad as it.
In A.D. 2101
War was beginning.
Captain: What happen ?
Mechanic: Somebody set up us the bomb.
Operator: We get signal.
Captain: What !
Operator: Main screen turn on.
Captain: It’s you !!
CATS: How are you gentlemen !!
CATS: All your base are belong to us.
Bill Brown, ta.
He really is touchy about that wages quote thingy though, every time I brought up the letter from the Herald Journalists chapter he runs away.
Tim Ellis did a similar disappearing act after calling me a liar about it. Sad really.
“Thirty Pieces of Silver” pages 154-157
… Geoffrey John Harley had prepared on behalf of the Utu [movie] investors a five page letter of objection to the [IRD] assessments dated 22 December 1986.
…
The Department said that the “expenditure” based on the limited recourse “lending” was utterly phony; that it was not having a bar of it, and that, if the investors wished to complain, the Department would see them in court.
It has been shown that Glenn gets confused over timelines etc. This is not a crime, it may not be deliberate. We all misremember things from time to time. But it does make him an unreliable witness. That is not to say that Winston is therefore telling the truth, but it does mean we still await actual proof of wrongdoing.
So the word has gone out to smear labours biggest donor because he’s flown home after shitting on helen.
Very brave stuff from the socialists indeed.
But I hope she doesn’t sack winnie as he’s worth much more to the right lashed to helen and mike w.
Have you read Gordon Campbell’s Scoop 08, assessment on Peters. He unpicks and examines each point that Peters made last night.
http://election08.scoop.co.nz/
I think Glenn is a bit of a show boat.
He’s decided to sulk because Clark didn’t back him on his “I’d be the bestest transport minister in the whole school” bullsh*t several months back, and ditto on the Monaco position.
He reminds me of Peter Leitch. Probably a pretty nice guy, but of a bullsh*tter, likes to be centre of attention.
I think Labours treatment of him has been lousy, but that doesn’t mean that everything he says is true (especially since there is ample evidence of cases where he’s been completely wrong).
The EB donation thing is not a case of “confusing timelines”, it’s a case of talking absolute crap about motivations.
What did Owen Glenn say when someone in the privileges committee asked him about the EB donation thing? Or didn’t anyone ask? If not, why not?
I’m not normally a conspiracy theorist, however listening to Trainer Stands By Statement on NatRad yesterday afternoon, the whole thing just starts to feel a bit “set up”.