David Farrar badly needs night school

45 comments on “David Farrar badly needs night school ”

• Comments are now closed

1. kenny 1

   6 June 2014 at 3:15 pm

   I think he meant ‘not’ instead of ‘now’.
2. David Farrar 2

   6 June 2014 at 3:15 pm

   You’ve got very excited over what is a one letter typo. The context makes it clear that I am saying the court should not have regard to what is best for the Government. I mistyped not as now. So I don’t need night school thanks very much. I just need to check for typos better.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1

     6 June 2014 at 3:22 pm

     Yeah nah, you’re still demonstrating ignorance of the pre-sentencing process.

     I figured it was a typo but it still doesn’t get you off the hook – Winston’s right: the timing of the election makes a lot more sense now.
   • mickysavage 2.2

     6 June 2014 at 3:26 pm

     So DPF you can understand the left’s interest in this issue. ACT has always been a National puppet party whose existence depended on National’s nodding and winking to the Epsom electorate.

     So why doesn’t Key put an end to the charade and state that Banks should resign?
     • toad 2.2.1

       6 June 2014 at 4:34 pm

       And the rort goes on, Micky. Paul Goldsmith has just refused to participate in the TV3 Epsom candidates’ debate, presumably for fear that it might encourage people to vote for him.
     • alwyn 2.2.2

       6 June 2014 at 5:20 pm

       Your knowledge of history is surely better than this statement shows isn’t it MS?

       “ACT has always been a National puppet party whose existence depended on National’s nodding and winking to the Epsom electorate.”

       “always” the man says.

       You are surely aware that in 1996 ACT got 6.10% of the vote, Richard Prebble won Wellington Central and they had 7 MPs.
       In 1999 they got 7.04% of the vote and 9 MPs.
       In 2002 they got 7.14% of the vote and 9 MPs.

       It was only after Don Brash was leader of the National Party in the 2005 election that they could be considered to be a “puppet party” as Brash supporters often had views that covered the ACT spectrum.
       By the results in the first 3 MMP elections I suppose it would be fair to describe the Green Party as only being a puppet for the Labour Party. After all the elections prior to 2005 would show that ACT were more popular than the Greens.
       If Labour could get a competent, and popular, leader instead of Goff, Shearer and Cunliffe they would probably decimate the Green Party vote.
   • lprent 2.3

     6 June 2014 at 3:30 pm

     You’ve got very excited over what is a one letter typo. The context makes it clear that I am saying the court should not have regard to what is best for the Government.

     Actually the context does not. It makes sense exactly as written if you were one of these people that felt an entitlement to rule. In fact rather like a typical tory. Or Judith Collins…

     I figured as much after I read it a few times. However I can’t go on what was in your mind, just on what you wrote at the time (and didn’t correct).

     That was why there was a “mischief” tag on the post. However I just couldn’t resist using it as a come-on to run through the pre-sentencing education, to highlight adult education, and why it was unlikely for Banks to get a discharge without conviction.

     Not to mention your many and varied 9th floor connections.
     • lurgee 2.3.1

       7 June 2014 at 7:18 am

       You need more, or better, coffee.

       The posted version, “I don’t think the Judge has actually helped the Government by delaying the decision on entering a conviction. Now that it is the Judge’s role to care about the impact on the Government,” doesn’t really make sense.

       “Now that it is the Judge’s role to care about the impact on the Government” does not work as a sentence. “Now that it is” requires something more, a continuation. “Now that it is the Judge’s role to care about the impact on the Government, we must all consider green pants and eat cat food on our heads,” makes some sort of sense, more than what was posted. Farrar’s botched version was nothing more than a loathsome, misbegotten, mis-shapen, miserable fragment, clinging to another for meaning and purpose – a veritable ACT Party of words!

       “Not that it is the Judge’s role to care about the impact on the Government” does.

       That should have been enough to alert anyone in a civilised state of caffeination, without recourse to several readings.
       • lprent 2.3.1.1

         7 June 2014 at 2:33 pm

         It was first thing in the morning, I was reading in bed. Coffee would have required getting out of a warm bed.
   • tc 2.4

     6 June 2014 at 3:48 pm

     But its likely you will need new revenue streams after your polling and other activities for this govt expire along with them in sept david or take less overseas holidays.
     • lprent 2.4.1

       6 June 2014 at 3:58 pm

       Now that is unfair…

       Not all of his income comes from parliamentary services or the public purse.

       The National party itself pays for a lot of it.

       😈
   • jaymam 2.5

     6 June 2014 at 8:33 pm

     It was clearly a typo to me.
   • Huginn 2.6

     7 June 2014 at 10:58 am

     A Freudian slip, then 😉
3. karol 3

   6 June 2014 at 3:16 pm

   Now that it is the Judge’s role to care about the impact on the Government.

   This looked to me like it included a typo by DPF. ie it’d read better, and seems to me more likely, if it said <

   Not that it is the Judge’s role to care about the impact on the Government.
   • lprent 3.1

     6 June 2014 at 3:31 pm

     Amazing the difference of meaning from one letter eh?
     • McFlock 3.1.1

       6 June 2014 at 4:50 pm

       It shows the risk of the old tory “contradictory statements” ploy. The outrageous-comment:equivocation:reinforce-first-comment routine.

       All well and good when it’s spoken, like key uses all the time, but who’s to say the intended sentence was

       Not that it is the Judge’s role to care about the impact on the Government

       rather than

       Now that it is the Judge’s role: to care about the impact on the Government.

       Lol.
       I’m not making a claim that farrar would be so honest as to argue that the judiciary should support a tory government. I’m simply stating that if you’re going to walk a narrow tightrope, you should try really hard to avoid slipping.
   • Tracey 3.2

     6 June 2014 at 3:55 pm

     even accounting for the typo it had an element of

     Sigh, bugger that we have seperation of powers…. Otherwise…
4. One Anonymous Bloke 4

   6 June 2014 at 3:19 pm

   The lifestyle and other factors which are considered to have contributed to them committing the offence…

   Hours of fun to be had there.

   Hanging around with Tories. Low levels of contact with out-groups. Narcissism. Bigotry. Chris Hipkins (Banks deserves some leniency after all).
5. Weepu's beard 5

   6 June 2014 at 3:21 pm

   W is three keys away from t on my keyboard.

   Is David sure it wasn’t some subliminal slip of the finger?
   • David H 5.1

     7 June 2014 at 7:48 am

     Now that’s a stretch even for FF syndrome.
6. TheContrarian 6

   6 June 2014 at 3:39 pm

   Wow, an entire piece predicated on a single typo. Nice work LPrent.
   • lprent 6.1

     6 June 2014 at 3:56 pm

     I’m afraid that the blogging mischief standard was set rather low back in 2008 when David Farrar and Cameron in the National double teaming expended a number of posts attacking a company I’d previously worked at. The reason was that we were acting as each others secondary DNS, including The Standard.

     The two mischief makers proceeded to devote a number of posts to the subject about that company helping Labour when it was obvious from the DNS records what was happening. After all David Farrar was on InternetNZ around then and should have been completely aware of what a secondary DNS was.

     Following that, I’ve never seen any particular reason to not hook readers into a post using their public scrotums as the lure.

     I consider it to be a public duty in that it tends to improve their behaviour as well as increasing this sites readership. And it satisfies the Polish part of my nature (the bit that really believes in vendetta) that would really prefer to do them; to use exactly the same tactics on them as they use on others.

     Besides most of the post (have you actually read it?) is about the pre-sentencing and possible outcomes from John Banks trial with a pointer to the ACE reestablishment announcement from Labour today
     • TheContrarian 6.1.1

       6 June 2014 at 4:01 pm

       Come on sweetheart, don’t tell fibs. You jumped on to Farrar’s typo with great zeal and now, upon realising your error, you backtrack and say it was all on purpose as a mischievous joke.

       Hush now dear, we all get it wrong sometimes. You can use this as a growing experience.

       [lprent: I’d like to point out as a moderator that it is a really bad idea to try to tell an author what they were thinking when they wrote their post. I’ll let it go this time. If it was someone elses post, I’d be giving you a ban as a repeat offender. ]
       • lprent 6.1.1.1

         6 June 2014 at 4:20 pm

         Nope. I read it several times and his post was internally consistent with the fallacy. For instance that idea that John Banks had a hope in hell of getting a discharge without conviction because he was “honourable” after that judgement was really strange. The judgement said that he wasn’t because of the deliberate withholding of information that would have led to an accurate electoral return.

         It was also consistent with “the divine right to do whatever they want” attitude that has been dogging this government since they went into power. How many ministers have they lost so far?

         And it was a bloody nice hook for the post.

         BTW: I actually wrote this post this morning without the kiwiblog stuff a few hours after I read his post. I was expecting him to have corrected the post. But I guess that no-one at Kiwiblog pulled him up on it (I haven’t read the comments section).

         Since he hadn’t, I rewrote it for the mischief.
       • TheContrarian 6.1.1.2

         6 June 2014 at 5:57 pm

         “I’d be giving you a ban as a repeat offender.”

         Not sure I have ever done that before.
7. Rob 7

   6 June 2014 at 3:59 pm

   Perhaps there will be a new Adult Education Course of on-line anger management that will be brought forward under Labours plan. Looks like a few people would benefit from some education in this area.
   • lprent 7.1

     6 June 2014 at 4:02 pm

     Ah where is the anger?

     This is mere mischief… Haven’t you read David Farrar’s statement at the top of his site?

     DPF’s Kiwiblog – Fomenting Happy Mischief since 2003

     He can hardly complain if others follow his precept eh?

     After all, it isn’t like he doesn’t do this a lot himself. For instance in this post he appears to ignore the word “introduce”and somehow get the word “urgency” as he dog-whistles some fools to attention.

     If that isn’t “mischief” (or a dishonest mistake), then one would have wonder what he was trying to do?
8. Wonderpup 8

   6 June 2014 at 4:04 pm

   It’s OK. He can claim never to have seen it, and not been aware of the mistake, as he just hit the “submit” button without having read it. That’s a reasonable defense, right? Oh no, hold on…
   • lprent 8.1

     6 June 2014 at 4:10 pm

     Ah yes. The venerable “John Banks” defence. I wonder how that will turn out.
9. redfred 9

   6 June 2014 at 4:04 pm

   I can’t image a discharge without conviction for a crime of electoral fraud; it goes to the very core of our democracy. We are talking about the role of the judiciary keeping the politicians honest; and holding them accountable, very weighty constitutional stuff. I cannot imagine a judge not upholding and seeing through this fundamental judicial responsibility of keeping our democracy corruption free.
   I think Banks will resign so he doesn’t suffer the indignity of expulsion; he won’t want that on his Wikipedia page!
   • lprent 9.1

     6 June 2014 at 4:11 pm

     The mischief maker in me really hopes that he does not.
     • redfred 9.1.1

       6 June 2014 at 4:50 pm

       Unfortunately we will suffer a tearful watershipdowns like valedictory speech from the dis-honorable cabbage boat rider 31 July.
       • Murray Olsen 9.1.1.1

         7 June 2014 at 3:09 am

         And a standing ovation from Labour as they say goodbye to a great statesman who has always done his best for the people of New Zealand? After all, they managed it for Sealord Jones.
   • David H 9.2

     7 June 2014 at 8:04 am

     As was noted somewhere else ( I can’t remember where) there are still complaints from last election that the Police haven’t looked at yet so the Police are going to be under a microscope over this latest cluster fuck by them.
10. Jrobin 10

    6 June 2014 at 5:28 pm

    Some rain must fall….sob ……emote……..I love you John Armstrong…….beagles……rats have feelings……..
    Yes we can tell you do John just a pity you have no ethical standards.
    Stay as long as you like as an MP at least your position is now up front and apparent to all.
    • BLiP 10.1

      6 June 2014 at 5:47 pm

      ‘

      Perhaps not surprisingly, John Banks got that quote wrong. Its actually a “into each life some rain must fall” and was a 1940s (not 1930s) song by the Ink Spots, although the original quote comes from Longfellow’s 1841 poem “A Rainy Day”.
11. Ron 11

    6 June 2014 at 6:30 pm

    Wonder if that would include a defendant that claims to suffer from memory loss

    Judges may also ask for psychiatric and psychological reports, which are commonly obtained for offenders who have mental health and/or drug or alcohol addiction problems.
12. ianmac 12

    6 June 2014 at 7:56 pm

    A defendant facing conviction and sentencing has to show remorse. Therefore Mr Bank’s belief that he did nothing wrong must count against him – musn’t it?
13. felix 13

    6 June 2014 at 8:48 pm

    Yeah it was a typo alright. He meant to type FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK!!!!!!!
14. Penny Bright 14

    6 June 2014 at 9:39 pm

    FYI

    WHY JOHN BANKS SHOULD LEAVE PARLIAMENT – NOW! (In my considered opinion)

    Some useful FACTS and LAW regarding the rather pivotal definition of ‘convicted’ / ‘conviction’?

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0087/latest/DLM308531.html

    (Electoral Act 1993)

    How vacancies created

    55 How vacancies created
    (1)The seat of any member of Parliament shall become vacant—

    (d) if he or she is convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for life or by 2 or more years’ imprisonment, or is convicted of a corrupt practice, or is reported by the High Court in its report on the trial of an election petition to have been proved guilty of a corrupt practice; or

    LAW DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS OF ‘CONVICTION’:

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/conviction

    Conviction

    The outcome of a criminal prosecution which concludes in a judgment that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged. The juncture of a criminal proceeding during which the question of guilt is ascertained. In a case where the perpetrator has been adjudged guilty and sentenced, a record of the summary proceedings brought pursuant to any penal statute before one or more justices of the peace or other properly authorized persons.

    The terms conviction and convicted refer to the final judgment on a verdict of guilty, a plea of guilty, or a plea of nolo contendere. They do not include a final judgment that has been deleted by a pardon, set aside, reversed, or otherwise rendered inoperative.

    thelawdictionary.org/conviction/

    The Law Dictionary Featuring Black’s Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed.

    Law Dictionary: What is CONVICTION? definition of CONVICTION (Black’s Law Dictionary)

    In practice. In a general sense, the result of a criminal trial which ends in a judgment or sentence that the prisoner is guilty as charged. Finding a person guilty by verdict of a jury. 1 Bish. Crim. Law,

    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/conviction

    Definition of conviction in English:
    conviction
    Line breaks: con|vic¦tion
    Pronunciation: /kənˈvɪkʃ(ə)n /
    NOUN

    1A formal declaration by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a judge in a court of law that someone is guilty of a criminal offence:
    she had a previous conviction for a similar offence

    (THE FOLLOWING RESEARCH DONE BY FELLOW ANTI-CORRUPTION ‘PUBLIC WATCHDOG’ – EX-POLICE PROSECUTOR GRACE HADEN):
    ……………………
    It appears that we have no definition for “convicted” in our statutes anymore and somehow through sleight of hand the word conviction has become to mean something after being found guilty.

    The old crimes act pre June 2013 defined conviction in section 3
    3. Meaning of “convicted on indictment”—For the purposes of this
    Act, a person shall be deemed to be convicted on indictment if—

    (a) He pleads guilty on indictment; or
    (b) He is found guilty on indictment; or
    (c) He is committed to the Supreme Court for sentence under section 44
    or section [153A or section] 168 of the Summary Proceedings Act
    1957; or
    (d) After having been committed to the Supreme Court for trial, he
    pleads guilty under section 321 of this Act.
    Cf. 1945, No. 23, s. 2 (2)

    In para. (c) the words in square brackets were inserted by s. 15


    (1) of the Judicature Amendment Act 1977. See s. 15 (2) of that Act.

    I have no idea why this was removed from the legislation 1 July 2013, bysection 6 of the Crimes Amendment Act (No 4) 2011 (2011 No 85). But it appears that a huge hole was left in the legislation

    If Wylie found Banks guilty Banks is convicted of the offence .
    Guilty is synonymous with Convicted
    The scenario used to be convicted – sentenced.
    Now it appears to be found guilty – convicted – sentenced .. yet there appears to be no legal precedent or legal foundation for this .

    The interpretation act gives no definition for convicted or guilty
    Since our legislation does not define Convicted anymore we have to rely on the interpretation of the legislation and the common dictionary meaning

    By way of argument that supports that conviction and Guilty mean the same you don’t have to look far.

    Section 147 Dismissal of charge Criminal Procedure Act 2011 makes the statement “ (c) in relation to a charge to be tried, or being tried, by a jury, the Judge is satisfied that, as a matter of law, a properly directed jury could not reasonably convict the defendant.”

    So how can a jury convict but a judge can’t ?

    Also when you appeal the guilty verdict you appeal your conviction . you don’t wait till sentencing you appeal it before sentence .
    No one appeals a guilty verdict they always appeal conviction .

    Crimes act is full of examples which infer that convicted and guilty mean the same
    Crimes act offences e.g 143 Included offences
    If the commission of the offence alleged (as described in the enactment creating the offence or in the charge) includes the commission of any other offence, the defendant may be convictedof that other offence if it is proved, even if the whole offence in the charge is not proved.

    And of particular significance is section 106 sentencing act

    Discharge without conviction

    (1) If a person who is charged with an offence is found guilty or pleads guilty, the court may discharge the offender without conviction, unless by any enactment applicable to the offence the court is required to impose a minimum sentence.
    The court has the power not to convict , to discharge without conviction . but at the time when the guilty verdict is given the common interpretation is that the person is convicted of the offence.

    So what act section case law legal precedent is any one relying on to say that Banks is not convicted?
    The judge did not specifically state that he would not enter a conviction at this time .

    Banks is there for convicted and should be removed from office .

    UPDATE! (Grace just discovered THIS in Justice Wylie’s verdict:

    [6] The information against Mr Banks was laid on 10 December 2012. Sections 105 and 106 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 apply to Judge-alone trials. However, those provisions only came into force on 1 July 2013. Pursuant to s 397 of the Act, this matter has been determined in accordance with the law as it was before that date.

    Meaning of “convicted on indictment”—For the purposes of this

    Act, a person shall be deemed to be convicted on indictment if—

    (a) He pleads guilty on indictment; or
    (b) He is found guilty on indictment; or
    (c) He is committed to the Supreme Court for sentence under section 44
    or section [153A or section] 168 of the Summary Proceedings Act
    1957; or
    (d) After having been committed to the Supreme Court for trial, he
    pleads guilty under section 321 of this Act.
    Cf. 1945, No. 23, s. 2 (2)

    In para. (c) the words in square brackets were inserted by s. 15


    (1) of the Judicature Amendment Act 1977. See s. 15 (2) of that Act.

    3 Meaning of convicted on indictment
    [Repealed]
    Section 3: repealed, on 1 July 2013, by section 6 of the Crimes Amendment Act (No 4) 2011 (2011 No 85).

    USEFUL INFORMATION FROM THE NZ CORRECTIONS WEBSITE:

    http://www.corrections.govt.nz/resources/over-representation-of-maori-in-the-criminal-justice-system/2.0-criminal-justice-system-bias-and-amplification/2-3.html

    2.2 Prosecutions and convictions

    Once an individual has been apprehended for an offence (alleged or suspected), Police must decide on whether to initiate a formal criminal prosecution. Such decisions are based on a number of considerations: the seriousness of the offence, the adequacy of evidence to be presented to the court, the number and type of associated offences for which the person may also have been arrested on that occasion, previous offending history, and so on. In some cases, evidence may be more than adequate for prosecution, but the remaining considerations militate against prosecution, and the offender is subjected to Police Diversion 1.

    When prosecution proceeds, the resulting criminal justice processes typically lead either to conviction 2 or acquittal.

    ….

    2 Some offenders are convicted but subsequently “discharged without conviction”.
    http://www.corrections.govt.nz/resources/over-representation-of-maori-in-the-criminal-justice-system/2.0-criminal-justice-system-bias-and-amplifica

    2.3 Sentencing

    Similarly as for Police decisions to prosecute, a range of factors are taken into consideration, in this case by judges, when imposing sentence on convicted offenders.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10122473/John-Banks-found-guilty-will-stay-in-Parliament

    Leader of the House Gerry Brownlee said Banks had not been convicted and therefore could remain in Parliament. Banks will probably apply for a discharge without conviction at his sentencing on August 1.
    …………………..

    This morning – I rang the Office of the Speaker in order to find out the definition of ‘conviction’ that was being relied upon, to say that ‘Banks had not been convicted’ and who had given this advice?

    (Given that the clear definition of ‘conviction’ that I had discovered in legal dictionaries was that ‘conviction’ was a guilty verdict in a criminal proceedings – which is what had happened to John Banks yesterday).

    I was told that this advice had come from Crown Law.

    So – I rang Crown Law and spoke to Jan Fulstow, and asked the same question.

    She said that the job of Crown Law was to advise Government – not members of the public.
    I explained that I was not just a member of the public, but one the original three who had made a complaint to the Police, and that I had a lot to do with this case.

    She refused to discuss this matter with me.

    I told her that in my considered opinion, Crown Law was misleading Parliament and that I intended to make a fuss about it.

    Which is exactly what I am now doing ….

    Penny Bright
    • Anne 14.1

      6 June 2014 at 10:00 pm

      Go for it Penny Bright. If anyone can succeed you can.
    • Mike the Savage One 14.2

      6 June 2014 at 10:52 pm

      I fear NatACT members can never be found “guilty”, as they live in a different world altogether, at a layer above the clouds on planet earth, they are “saints” in their own views, no matter what any court may find, and what any human observer may think.

      The audacity is incredible, and even some in the media talk about “trivial” breach of the law, while a brown skinned person from Otara would be sent to prison for 2 years, for a similar kind of offence.

      That is “justice” NZ style, I’d say, and I know some who experienced it themselves, not being NZers, and simply not being so, or coming from the “wrong” background, they were always guiltier, much “guiltier” than a common New Zealander would be, especially one holding “high” office.

      This is a rotten system here, it stinks, and I wish that only some more would stand up and challenge it.
15. Mike the Savage One 15

    6 June 2014 at 10:44 pm

    If the “honourable” Mr Banks wants to keep a tiny remnant of respect and credit, then he should bloody well resign now.

    As for David Farrar, he must realise the potential damage it does, to keep Banks in Parliament and support Key and Nats. That is the only motivation for his comments, none else.

    He is worried that Banks will damage the potential win of Key and his party, by having Banks stay in Parliament and support the government.

    So it is like that, once you have a “difficult sailor” on board, throw him overboard a.s.a.p.. So much for “loyalty” from David Farrar, Banks must think.
16. dimebag russell 16

    7 June 2014 at 12:29 am

    too true lprent. farrar and this national bunch seem to think that the judiciary is part of the publlic service responsible to the wishes of ministers. Just as well National will be out in september or key and co might try to start passing legislation suborning the judiciary. they will stop at nothing even when they are proven criminals.
17. dimebag russell 17

    7 June 2014 at 12:34 am

    if he resigns now will the pensioners in Greys Ave get their flats back?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS