Banks lied while a minister

19 comments on “Banks lied while a minister ”

• Comments are now closed

1. mickysavage 1

   27 July 2012 at 8:32 am

   The way I see it the Police are hinting that Banks broke one part of the Local Electoral Act 2001.

   Section 134(2) makes it an offence to transmits a return of electoral expenses that is false in any material particular unless the candidate proves that he had no intention to mis-state or conceal the facts AND that he took all reasonable steps to ensure that the information was accurate.

   Asking a volunteer “is it accurate” cannot be regarded as taking all reasonable steps.

   And the only reason a charge cannot be laid is because the offence only became public after the 6 months time limit had expired.

   The question has to be asked of Key, does he really thinking it to be of the highest ethical standards to have someone who probably breached an important provision of the Electoral Law, let alone someone who in the face of it has told fibs?

   Is this really the higher ethical standards we were promised? 
2. sweetd 2

   27 July 2012 at 8:54 am

   If the police are ‘hinting’ then charge him, otherwise stop speculating. He has not been charge with anything, end of.
   • Lanthanide 2.1

     27 July 2012 at 8:59 am

     It’s pretty much a statute of limitations thing.

     If someone robs a bank and then waits 7 years (or however long it is) before admitting it, then they can’t be charged. But that doesn’t mean they didn’t commit the crime. Exactly the same situation with Banks.
   • Judge Holden 2.2

     27 July 2012 at 9:32 am

     “He has not been charge with anything, end of.”

     Seriously? It’s all right on your planet for a Minister of the Crown to blatant lies to the public then? Soliciting donations, thanking people for donations that were handed to him directly and then forgetting all about them, deliberately attempting to circumvent electoral laws, forgetting helicopter rides, fireworks displays and giving toasts at birthday parties etc. And how about “He’s a married man!”

     With a mind like he’s obviously got, I’m not sure he’s up to handling ministerial portfolios. Having said that, given the overall incompetence of his colleagues perhaps he’s not an outlier.
     • mickysavage 2.2.1

       27 July 2012 at 9:42 am

       Aye JH

       How about this from a Minister of the Crown?

       Banks: “Are you saying that Dotcom’s at SkyCity?”
       RadioLive: “No, no – that you had donations to your mayoral campaign from SkyCity and two from Kim Dotcom.”
       Banks: “Oh, look, look, look, look, look, look, look [pause] this matter. I don’t know if you’re caught up with it … I have never been to SkyCity with Dotcom.”
       RadioLive: “And what about donations to your campaign? Did you have a relationship with Kim Dotcom?”
       Banks: “What’s your relationship? This is offensive! He’s a married man, what are you talking about?”
       RadioLive: “[Laughs] Not a relationship like that.”
       Banks: “No, look I don’t want to go down … I’ve had no relationship with Dotcom – he’s got a wife.”
       RadioLive: “Not like that, a business relationship.”
       Banks: [hangs up]
       RadioLive: [calls back]
       Banks: “Hello?”
       RadioLive: “Hi, I was just wanting to clear up something, I wasn’t meaning to …”
       Banks: “Just a minute, just a minute – I have never had a relationship with Dotcom, he is a married man. And I have not been to the SkyCity with the guy. So thanks for your time, thanks for your call 
       • Judge Holden 2.2.1.1

         27 July 2012 at 10:12 am

         Key’s satisfied that that’s a straight up, honest guy speaking, obviously.

         “Nothing to fear, nothing to hide”. Yeah right.
       • Robert Atack 2.2.1.2

         27 July 2012 at 6:55 pm

         Banks is just another ‘closet’ afraid to come out, full stop.
         So he might have had a relationship with Kim, if he wasn’t a married man?

         He could have said “I haven’t had a relationship with Kim, caus I don’t fuck guys”
         .

         .
         .
         It is all bullshit
         • Socialist Paddy 2.2.1.2.1

           27 July 2012 at 8:00 pm

           Aye the response was jarring.  So if Kimdotcom wasn’t married Banks might have done the wild thing with him?
     • sweetd 2.2.2

       27 July 2012 at 10:13 am

       “He has not been charge with anything, end of.”

       Seriously? It’s all right on your planet for a Minister of the Crown to blatant lies to the public then?

       No, my point is the hinting that Eddie refers to. If they have evidence, then proceed with a case. Otherwise there is nothing to answer.
       • Kotahi Tāne Huna 2.2.2.1

         27 July 2012 at 10:16 am

         You don’t really understand how this works, do you?

         Banks is dog meat.
       • mickysavage 2.2.2.2

         27 July 2012 at 10:17 am

         Sweetd they can’t.  There is a limitation period.  This means that after 6 months they cannot prosecute even if they have an open and shut, its a fair cop guv, guilty as case.  So putting up or shutting up is not an option with the less serious charge.
   • Frank Macskasy 2.3

     28 July 2012 at 7:47 pm

     “End of”?!

     Au contraire, my sweet-cherie…

     There are way more questions that require answering here. And I’ve written according to those concerned.

     http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2012/07/28/john-banks-escaping-justice/

     As for the “six months” limitations that the Police referred to, I can’t find any reference to it in section 134; http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2001/0035/latest/DLM94799.html

     It would be interesting to know where the Police got that from. (Or perhaps I’ve missed something?! )
3. Akldnut 3

   27 July 2012 at 9:13 am

   Eddie need to edit – should read a $15,000 chq not $150K
4. Kotahi Tāne Huna 4

   27 July 2012 at 9:30 am

   Banks lied to the NZ Herald and the public. Key can hardly expect higher standards of his ministers than he exhibits himself.
   • rosy 4.1

     28 July 2012 at 2:03 am

     I really hoped he had said in parliament that he kept away from the donations side of things – misleading parliament and all that. But I think they kept him out of there until it all calmed down, didn’t they?
5. North 5

   27 July 2012 at 9:35 am

   The important thing is everyone knows that Banks is dodgy and kaka and everyone knows that Key is dodgy and kaka. There is the stink of hypocrisy, even the slightest odour of corruptness about them both.

   Accordingly, in the subliminal consciousness of more and more people there is an unarticulated “Yeah, right…..” when Banks comes out pompously lecturing about whatever, and more importantly, when Key pisses and simpers on about “standards”.

   Moral authority slips further and further. The scene is set for the slip to be exponential. Especially since increasingly Key struts out with the persona of the arrogant, dismissive, and somewhat limited punk rich boy. And I do mean “boy”.
   • Bored 5.1

     27 July 2012 at 10:02 am

     somewhat limited……”boy” so true, BUT that is his appeal to our anti intellectual populace. And a boy, one of the boys, an exclusive rich boys club.
     • Bored 5.1.1

       27 July 2012 at 10:05 am

       A further thought on “moral authority”. Where does this stand in a land where we have all subscribed to getting rich through such things as housing capital gains? A land where we don’t examine the cost of the gains, who pays it, and who benefits by it? Where we all turn a blind eye because “everybody is doing it” and we cant let the Jones next door get ahead.

Links to post

1. McCarten on Banks « The Standard: posted on 29 July 2012 at 11:41 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS