Written By:
notices and features - Date published:
6:15 am, June 28th, 2017 - 22 comments
Categories: Abuse of power, accountability, national, Politics -
Tags: Julie Fairey, Todd Barclay
I'm confused about some of the Barclay stuff and have some questions: 1. Why did Nats/English protect him to get re-selected? 1/n
— Julie Fairey (@juliefairey) June 26, 2017
2. Why did Key authorise settlement payment from his Leader's Fund if he didn't know any details, hadn't asked any Q https://t.co/qLERZa5DFG
— Julie Fairey (@juliefairey) June 26, 2017
3. How do the dates line up – confidential employment settlement & police complaint abt illegal recording. 3/n
— Julie Fairey (@juliefairey) June 26, 2017
4. If Barclay's value to Nats is his ability to raise $ (from tobacco or otherwise) why did he need a $5k loan from party to campaign? 4/n
— Julie Fairey (@juliefairey) June 26, 2017
5. Why is English not handling this well? It's as if he is trying to protect someone, but who is more important to protect than the PM? 5/
— Julie Fairey (@juliefairey) June 26, 2017
6. English worked closely with Dickson, and probably others who were agin Barclay, for years, yet happy to go w Barclay over them? 6/n
— Julie Fairey (@juliefairey) June 26, 2017
7. Why didn't Nats cut Barclay loose when he broke whole heap of their own selection rules? Esp given Flood friend of Key? 7/n
— Julie Fairey (@juliefairey) June 26, 2017
8. How can English be accepted as not being sure about illegality given Teapot Tapes (2011) & this (2008) https://t.co/vEvZVH0oCf 8/n
— Julie Fairey (@juliefairey) June 26, 2017
9. Will Barclay get a precious leave slot from now until House rises in mid August? Will he be shuffled off select committees? 9/n
— Julie Fairey (@juliefairey) June 26, 2017
Finally (for now) 10. Why did English et al let Barclay get away with repeatedly publicly lie about not having made recording(s)?
— Julie Fairey (@juliefairey) June 26, 2017
Although does now raise questions (for me) 11 Why did it take from 29 Feb to 12 Jul for police to ask Barclay abt it? #rpt
— Julie Fairey (@juliefairey) June 26, 2017
If Parliamentary Servuces are covered by the Public Records Act 2005 and ‘tapes’ are part of the ‘public record’ – how can they NOT have a copy of ‘the tape’?
Penny Bright
‘Anti- privatisation / anti-corruptiion campaigner’.
2017 Independent candidate for Tamaki.
Exposing the $1.6 billion Tamaki ‘Regeneration’ -GENTRIFICATION $CAM.
Are you aware Penny ,that Key is now the Chairperson of the Democratic Union . Its very powerful,rich and very Right-Wing.
11 questions.
But we don’t have a media that will ask.
Hillary Barry asked Bill English how he could be casting doubt on the existence of any tapes, while at the same time a huge payout from the Government had been made because of them.
He didn’t answer the question.
The question needs to be asked again until it is answered.
John Key, that’s who. He, or at least his reputation, is more important to the National Party than the PM. If it were to come out that Key acted in a corrupt or criminal fashion it would tarnish National by confirming to the public what some already know and most suspect – that they are dodgy as hell.
Agreed Muttonbird. The decision to settle on a payout must have been Key’s. He must have known that it was important enough to do so. He would believe that the issue was buried. English may have been involved and may have disagreed with the Key actions.
Now English is committed to his position of “not being involved.” To now detail the Key machinations would show Key to have been unscrupulous and corrupt.
So English is mired in a mess originating with Key.
However English did apparently support the re-selection of Barclay. Mmmm?
However English did apparently support the re-selection of Barclay. Mmmm?
Once the cover up was entered into, even Barclay holds the goods on his superiors.
No 2:”Why did Key authorise settlement payment from his Leader’s Fund if he didn’t know any details, hadn’t asked any Q https://t.co/qLERZa5DFG”
“Key told RNZ he had seen media reports of the resignations, but had not been formally briefed about it.
They have used that “formally” tactic before and recently from English. Doesn’t mean that they didn’t have intense discussions though.
Yep, it’s a device use to stop further questioning.
And as for this…
– Key
Lol.
Good questions. And good answer from Muttonbird on #5. And a further question :
When will the mainstream media ask some of these questions ?
This
“10. Why did English et al let Barclay get away with repeatedly publicly lie about not having made recording(s)?”
and also
Why did English et al let Barclay get away with repeating publicly it was an employment dispute with the implication that Glenys Dickson (as the employee) had been at fault when no complaint had ever been made about her with her employer.
~~~~~
Given that there was no complaint against Dickson and it has been confirmed that noone has broken confidentiality*, who was the employment complaint against and who was the confidentiality agreement between? Did Dickson make a complaint against Barclay?
And if the confidentiality agreement was between Dickson and Barclay, what were they having to be quiet about, if it was not about the illegal taping?
*prior to the “sex and drugs”/”drug dealer” comments.
If natzis had a clear majority, they would have been able to let Barclay go. So they were protecting that, not specifically Barclay. Power is all to them.
Given the near certainty of National winning any by-election in Clutha Southland that’s unlikely.
Maybe the Toddger knows the whereabouts of some interesting buried bodies.
@ question 5 – thus far Dickson has confined her comments to Barclay’s illegalities. But if anyone knows where all Bill’s skeletons are buried it will be her. So while Bill wants to slap her down, he can’t afford to. Cue efficacy crisis.
$100k ??!!! Hushhhhhh… wow!!… Q6 from today…
RON MARK to the Prime Minister: In his Prime Ministerial capacity, does he stand by all his statements on the Clutha-Southland electorate office issue; if so, how does he do that?
Introduced as prime minister, addressed as prime minister, asked as prime minister, answered as something other than prime minister.
love it
Yup pick a ‘hat’ any ‘hat’
It’s at around 4:09 if any are interested re the $100k
The outgoing PM rejects the Members assertions..(what a surprise lolz) then goes on to delude and distract, using techniques from the national party thesaurus of propaganda.
$100k is a very large sum to pay out to one person for an ’employment dispute’
Ron Mark telling it like it is re Barclay in the general debate….well worth a listen.
He shines more light on the $100k that he mentioned earlier.
So Mr Marks says Mike Williams says it was $100,000 payout. That is pretty big money! Why so big?
Assuming it’s true, that has to be the revelation of the day! I imagined it to be around the $50,000 mark. For money like that to be paid out then Glenys Dickson must have become privy to something very damaging to someone senior inside the National Party. And maybe that something was enough to bring down the government.
“You can run but you can’t hide, Bill”
Lol.