Finlayson QC

Written By: - Date published: 11:27 am, December 14th, 2012 - 100 comments
Categories: corruption, politicans - Tags:

So Chris Finlayson, Attorney General, finally managed to get his Bill through last month re-allowing the antiquated title of Queen’s Counsel to be conferred on lawyers again.  The title is worth hundred of thousands in extra legal fees you can charge with your added prestige of having ‘taken silk’.

Yesterday he made his first appointment to the title.  It went to…

Chris Finlayson.

lprent: The press secretary for Chris Finlayson advises via e-mail:

…the Minister responsible for the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill was the Justice Minister (although the Attorney did introduce the bill in 2009). The recommendation for the appointments to Queen’s Counsel of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General were made by the PM under the prerogative powers preserved by the Act, not by the Attorney-General.

Bunji: that’ll teach me to trust Newstalk ZB…

100 comments on “Finlayson QC ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Rich 1
    14 December 2012 at 11:34 am

    In NZ, everyone knows everyone and clients will have a good idea whether a lawyer’s going to be any good for their work, whether they’re Mr Lord Justice Dr Sir Christopher Finlayson QC, KPMG, VC, DSO and Bar, or plain Mr Finlayson.

    So to make the big dollars, he’ll have to go overseas, and I’m not sure how well an NZ QC would do at the UK bar (would he even qualify?).

  2. vto 2
    14 December 2012 at 11:41 am

    ha ha how pathetic.

    The other words which QC stands for are far more appropriate for Finlayson.

    • Lanthanide 2.1
      14 December 2012 at 12:19 pm

      What else does QC stand for?

    • Dave Kennedy (bsprout) 2.2
      14 December 2012 at 12:41 pm

      vto-i am appalled that you use this inference, even if intended as light hearted (it is not) and feel that such comments should be immediately censored. It reflects badly on this blog while it remains in public view and is apparently tolerated.

      • vto 2.2.1
        14 December 2012 at 12:47 pm

        Fair enough, it is certainly a heavy term. Funny thing is though that in use it in fact describes Finlayson and his actions in the political arena over time, and especially what he has done here. Not used or heard very many places these days so many people who don’t come across it may well take the wrong meaning from it. In its usual place it fits and in fact has little to do with abuse. More to describe someone’s actions and their relation to the relevant norms. Perhaps too much for here…

        • karol 2.2.1.1
          14 December 2012 at 12:51 pm

          Say what?  vto, as a lesbian I really can’t fathom your attempted excuse for using that term.  I also totally disagree with Finlayson’s abuse of power.  It has nothing to do with sexuality.

          And I do find the term used above to be offensive. 

          • vto 2.2.1.1.1
            14 December 2012 at 1:05 pm

            ok ok, point taken. Wrong side of the tracks. Will keep that shit to where it is known and its use accepted for what it is, along with all the other types of offensive shit that gets splattered at each and every thing and type and species. Nobody is immune in the badlands. But you know, I do not retract the fact that this alternative use of the letters describes Finlayson’s actions.

            Not a very merry christmas post was it – sorry for bringing down the tone

            And King Kong, do you know if South Park is real?

            • karol 2.2.1.1.1.1
              14 December 2012 at 1:11 pm

              Nice. 🙁

              • vto …
                14 December 2012 at 2:17 pm

                Yeah, sorry. But you know, been thinking through the lunchtime wandering, the brain bouncing along the road behind, and I got to thinking that whenever this term is used it is never / rarely actually used in a homophobic abuse sense. The queer aspect relates to the unusuality of whatever is the subject of scorn, and this is of course a genuine and ancient definition for ‘queer’. It never relates to anything sexual. That is my experience of it. So I think this aspect of it has been misconstrued on here.

                The other half of the saying is of course used in the usual, and often good, sense that that word is used i.e. “He’s a good c…”. More in that sense. But it is well accepted that the word is one of the more reviled in the queens english.

                So, to call Finlayson such in these circumstances does fit. His actions in granting himself a status are the actions of a q c. The fact of his personal circumstances are immaterial, although given the surrounding lay of the land it was perhaps unwise to follow the brain trail down this rabbit hole …….

                And a bouquet for Finlayson, this matter aside… He impresses when he is on target. He is sharp certainly. Knowledgeable. Follows the conventions and rule of law. Seems to rest his actions on a broad base understanding and respect for our centuries-old system (which cannot be said for his colleagues in government).

                • King Kong …
                  14 December 2012 at 2:47 pm

                  Thats hilarious. You are such a jizz stain.

                • Populuxe1 …
                  14 December 2012 at 2:56 pm

                  So basically if John Key uses the word “gay” out of context in a mildly pejorative way that was more buffoonery than anything, he’s a horrible homophobe, but if you use “queer” in a blatantly offensive way you expect to have it laughed off. Hmmm.

                • felixviper …
                  14 December 2012 at 8:19 pm

                  For what it’s worth (probably not much) I’ve not known the term to be usually used in a homophobic sense either. It’s a hoary old saying and my experience of it is just as vto says, to mean a strange bastard.

                  It’s not a particularly urban or urbane turn of phrase, and some of you sophisticated educated city dwellers might not be used to the kind of talk where words like “cunt” aren’t automatically assumed to be insulting.

                  So I do understand why people might find it offensive but I do also think it’s being taken the wrong way. vto has always seemed like a good cunt to me.

          • asp viper 2.2.1.1.2
            14 December 2012 at 1:51 pm

            I presume you might be doubly offended?

          • Colonial Weka 2.2.1.1.3
            14 December 2012 at 2:25 pm

            I’ve heard the term queer cunt used for a very long time and always assumed that queer was its old usage (as in odd). I would have to honestly say that it never occurred to me that it was being used homophobically given the places I heard it used. I know someone who uses the term queer to mean odd with no trace of homophobia (he’s quite old though), but that’s rare now. I think using the term queer cunt is inadvisable now because the main use of the word queer these days is for the not straight.

            • Populuxe1 2.2.1.1.3.1
              14 December 2012 at 3:00 pm

              Calling a GLBT person a “queer cunt” is offensive. End. Of. Story.

              • vto …
                14 December 2012 at 3:03 pm

                I aint never heard anybody do that pop

                • Populuxe1 …
                  14 December 2012 at 3:06 pm

                  Findlayson is gay. This is public information. So yes you did.

                  • vto …
                    14 December 2012 at 3:10 pm

                    Well yes I know that but it was used in the context described above.

                    But you concentrate a point – is abuse ladled out by the statement or by the receipt?

                    • Populuxe1 …
                      14 December 2012 at 3:21 pm

                      Give it up vto – unless you’ve lived in isolation in a cave for the last 70 years or so, you know perfectly well what “queer”‘s commonest usage is and how politically charged a term it is, even in the GLBT community. You should certainly know better than to use it as an insult, and it boggles the mind that you would use it of an openly gay man, especially in conjunction with a word deemed so offensive it’s one of the few you can’t use on  late night TV.

                      Just own that you did it deliberately, own that you fucked up and apologise properly. Maybe we’ll put it down to a similar lapse in judgement as Key’s “gay” brainfart. Stop trying to wriggle around the issue and you may come out of this with some dignity and respect intact. 

                    • vto …
                      14 December 2012 at 3:27 pm

                      Look pop, read each of my posts on this. They are all up and down around here. No point in repeating myself to answer your points there. You have the wrong end of it. And certainly I have trodden on some more modern toes.

                      Put it like this – If some other non-gay cock had been made a QC in circumstances like this I would have called him a q c for the exact same reasons. It fits the actions. It is an old term.

                      The issue arises with my last sentence in my last post just above yours. And it is genuine question – what defines offence? The intent of the maker of the statement? Or the receipt in which the statement is taken?

                    • Colonial Weka …
                      14 December 2012 at 3:39 pm

                      “And it is genuine question – what defines offence? The intent of the maker of the statement? Or the receipt in which the statement is taken?”
                       
                      Both those things, but also context (and lack of intent doesn’t equal absence of offense). Would you be surprised if someone called me a stupid cunt and I took that more personally (because I am a woman) than I might if I were a man? And do you understand that the reason I might be more upset is not only because I am a woman, but because women’s sexuality gets used against them all the time, esp that particuarly body part and word, often in incredibly damaging ways.
                       
                      Likewise, calling gay man a queer cunt has completely different implications than calling a straight man a queer cunt. You might not think or feel there is much difference, but that is beside the point.

                    • vto …
                      14 December 2012 at 3:44 pm

                      Yes weka, I do see that. Sometimes maybe a D9 isn’t the best machine for the job

                  • Sosoo …
                    14 December 2012 at 3:11 pm

                    It was a pun. How dense are you?

                • marty mars …
                  14 December 2012 at 3:11 pm

                  you did vto but I expect you’ll run around with your tail on fire for a while yet

              • Colonial Weka …
                14 December 2012 at 3:05 pm

                Agreed Populuxe. Context is everything.

              • Richard McGrath …
                14 December 2012 at 7:28 pm

                So a GLBT can never be an odd and silly person?

                • McFliper …
                  14 December 2012 at 7:46 pm

                  Indeed they can.
                     
                  But one should be clear that it’s what one means, or one might be mistaken for a passive-aggressive moron who throws bigoted abuse and hides behind alternative definitions when called on it. And “silly or odd” seems to do the job quite adequately.

        • King Kong 2.2.1.2
          14 December 2012 at 12:54 pm

          Dude, there is no way you can invoke the ground breaking case of the Southpark City Council vs Harley Davidson Riders of America where it was found that the word “fag” had evolved from being a derogatory term for a gay to an insult for noisy, attention seeking, motocycle riding douchebags.

          There is no way in the world that being called a queer c**t is anything other than a homophobic insult.

          • Kevin Welsh 2.2.1.2.1
            14 December 2012 at 1:18 pm

            There is no way in the world that being called a queer c**t is anything other than a homophobic insult.

            Bollocks.

            • karol 2.2.1.2.1.1
              14 December 2012 at 1:24 pm

              Really? If lesbian and gay people tell you they find it offensive, you say they are wrong?

              And I find it extremely offensive.   

              • asp viper …
                14 December 2012 at 1:54 pm

                I find it more stupid than offensive but hey…………..

              • Colonial Weka …
                14 December 2012 at 2:29 pm

                Karol, as I said above, I’ve known that term to be used without reference to queerness in its modern sense. The people I am thinking of probably didn’t even know that queer meant gay when I was younger, it simply meant odd. I can also understand why you would find it extremely offensive. It’s one of those transitions of language I think.

                • karol …
                  14 December 2012 at 2:38 pm

                  When I was a child we used to use the term “queer” as a kind of term of friendly abuse.  We didn’t really understand why our parents didn’t like it.  

                  By the time I was a teenager, coming to terms with my sexuality, it was a pretty widely used homophobic term for homosexuals.  Since then the term has been reclaimed and used positively by LGBTI people.

                  Online etymology dictionaries date the use of the term to refer to homosexual as beginning around the 1920s or 30s.

                  But using the “c” word with it, and applying it to a known gay man, I don’t know how it could be seen as anything but homophobic.

                  The “c” word is one I rarely hear in my daily life, and the people I am closest to never used it as a swear word.  I tend to associate it as being used in fairly masculine contexts.

                   

                  • Soap …
                    14 December 2012 at 2:52 pm

                    The original poster was making a mildly witty pun. as I read it, it was intended to get at CF in respect of being odd, not gay – the gay use being required to make the pun work.

                  • Colonial Weka …
                    14 December 2012 at 3:14 pm

                    You are right Karol, and my apologies, I was talking about the historic use of the phrase, not how it got brought up in this thread.
                     
                    I’m still fairly sure that the word queer was being used to mean odd when I was younger, but we may have grown up in different places and times. It wasn’t a word used in the main part of my life in either sense of it. Nor was cunt used. In my middle class background cunt would be the most offensive thing you could call someone. In latter years I’ve had to acclimatise myself to hearing it used regularly without the heavy association to it. Now I listen to see if it is being used as a weapon of misogyny or just another swear word. Mostly it’s the latter.
                     
                     

                    • Populuxe1 …
                      14 December 2012 at 3:33 pm

                      I mean, seriously, do you think it acceptable to refer to shoddy workmanship as a “Maori job”? People used to say that too.

                    • Colonial Weka …
                      14 December 2012 at 3:56 pm

                      Were you talking to me? You’ll have to explain the comparison, because I don’t get it what you are comparing to.

                    • Populuxe1 …
                      14 December 2012 at 4:23 pm

                      Sorry, no – I was agreeing with you. I meant “you” rhetorically.

                    • karol …
                      14 December 2012 at 5:18 pm

                      Actually two words in combination can be more offensive than either word used alone or combined with other words.  I don’t object to everyday uses of the term “queer” as obviously meaning odd.  Nor do I usually object to the “c” word, though it’s not one I use as a term of abuse.

                      But the words in combination these days, and applied to a gay man do take on a homophobic meaning.

                      Similarly, the words “black” and “bastard” in many sentences are not offensive. But calling a black person a “black bstrd” is considered by many people, especially when I lived in London, to be very offensive.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      14 December 2012 at 6:18 pm

                      I commented on here that Key was a cunt for saying a shirt was “gay” and offered the (obviously strained) explanation that he meant “weird”. IMO that was justified.

                • Populuxe1 …
                  14 December 2012 at 3:31 pm

                  Well gosh, look out of the cave mouth and notice it’s the twenty-first century. Women have the vote and Maori are allowed into pubs. Things change. Deal with it.

              • Soap …
                14 December 2012 at 2:40 pm

                Not all do. These sorts of arguments go nowhere.

              • Sweetd …
                14 December 2012 at 2:51 pm

                While I agree in this instance that the term queer c##t is offensive as I took it at the literal meaning not knowing of others in use in legal circles, I take offence at the attitude that just cause you are lesbian or gay you ‘own’ the word and thus define whether it is offensive or not.

                Just like the word Gay, there are other meanings to the word as Key demostrated, and sure as night follows day, someone will take offence.

                • karol …
                  14 December 2012 at 3:02 pm

                  Of course.  And homophobia doesn’t really exist.  Those of us who have been on the receiving end of it should just accept that some het people don’t feel offended by homophobia.  Nothing to see here: ie when many people feel comfortable using words in a way many LGBT find offensive…. they’re just being silly.

                  And the “n” word really just means black.  So why should an African American take offence if an Caucasian person used it as a term of abuse against another African American man?

                  • Sosoo …
                    14 December 2012 at 3:10 pm

                    You’re deliberately misunderstanding what the poster said in order to further your own agenda.

                    • karol …
                      14 December 2012 at 3:22 pm

                      Oh.  My agenda?  And what is that?

                      PS: Disagreeing with someone, is not the same as “deliberately misunderstanding them”.

                    • Populuxe1 …
                      14 December 2012 at 3:23 pm

                      Um, no. Karol was trying to explain why it’s so fucking offensive and shouldn’t used so casually – especially here. Go pedal your own agenda elsewhere thanks.

                    • Colonial Weka …
                      14 December 2012 at 3:27 pm

                      It’s pretty clear that vto made a joke about Finlayson, a gay man, being a queer cunt, and that he was playing on the word queer. Irrespective of the fact that queer cunt may have historical use that isn’t homophobic, you can’t call a gay man a queer cunt not expect that to be unoffensive.
                       
                      As for who owns words, ‘queer’ was a pejorative and abusive word (and still is), and the queer communities reclaimed it. So yeah those communities have some claim over the word that others don’t. In the same way that as a woman I will challenge someone who use the term cunt as a way of putting women down.

              • Populuxe1 …
                14 December 2012 at 3:01 pm

                I’m a “queer cunt” and I find it offensive.

            • King Kong 2.2.1.2.1.2
              14 December 2012 at 1:25 pm

              I applaud your concise, insightful and well reasoned rebuttal

            • JonL 2.2.1.2.1.3
              14 December 2012 at 3:25 pm

              “Bollocks”

              Quite agree – I’ve heard the expression used for 60 yrs and it does not have homophobic overtones – but – people will put interpretations to it according to their own perceptions, so……what do you do…….?
              Not use it I guess!
              Language bullies abound all over…….

              • King Kong …
                14 December 2012 at 3:36 pm

                My father, on occasion, would use the phrase “nigger in the woodpile” which I dare say was completely socially acceptable untill not that long ago (relatively). He doesn’t use it anymore.

                Damn those language bullies.

              • Populuxe1 …
                14 December 2012 at 3:38 pm

                It might not have had “homophobic overtones” back before the asteroid hit and killed all the dinosaurs (except you and the tuatara, apparently) but it clearly does now. 

                Just in case you were wondering, it is also now offensive to use expressions like “Nigger in the woodpile” as well. Keep up, there’s a chap.

                • vto …
                  14 December 2012 at 3:40 pm

                  What about “honky”? You know, like “fucking honky”.

                  • Populuxe1 …
                    14 December 2012 at 3:50 pm

                    Well now you’re just being pathetic, vto – but personally I find being called a honky offensive. 
                    Do you like it you red-necked slave-owning share-cropping pasty-arsed land-stealing, Maori-raping fucking honky? Now let that roll around your mind for a bit before putting it into context.

                  • Neoleftie …
                    14 December 2012 at 7:38 pm

                    Jeeves weeped do we need adiscourse on flithy language , are we children….

            • QoT 2.2.1.2.1.4
              15 December 2012 at 1:29 am

              LOL, it’s funny because female genitals are gross, lol!

              • karol …
                15 December 2012 at 7:40 am

                Hence the reason it’s a word I don’t use as an insult.  OTOH, it’s a strange thing that English uses words for male genitalia as well to insult people.  Strange to use such words to refer to people.

      • marty mars 2.2.2
        14 December 2012 at 12:48 pm

        It reflects badly on vto not the blog IMO Dave but i agree the inference is totally uncalled for and quite yucky.

  3. Sweetd 3
    14 December 2012 at 11:42 am

    So, when Labour dropped Queens Council in favour of Senior Council did lawyers lose hundreds and thousands of dollars in extra legal fees?

  4. Tom Gould 4
    14 December 2012 at 11:45 am

    It’s a Tory thing. Muldoon knighted himself. It’s what they do.

    • Colonic Wiper 4.1
      14 December 2012 at 11:59 am

      Really , Cullen is quite keen on the idea as well from what I recall.

      • Tom Gould 4.1.1
        14 December 2012 at 12:54 pm

        Cullen didn’t knight himself. Muldoon was PM when he ‘left the cabinet room’ while the decision was made, just like Findlayson I guess with the QC thing. Cullen was a private citizen when knighted, and it was by the opposing party cabinet.

        • KhandallaMan-an Absolutely Fabulous QC & Viper 4.1.1.1
          14 December 2012 at 1:45 pm

          Michael Cullen disappointed many many admirers when he accepted the silly gong.  Whenever I see a reference to him I can’t help saying: you silly silly man.
          IMO, the title sh*t grates with where Labour came from and what Labour should be about.

    • The Pink Postman 4.2
      14 December 2012 at 4:14 pm

      quite correct TomG .What ever pleasure do they get from,some past Pommy title. My grandmother who was a stickler for good manners always said that the most important title was lady and gentleman in its true meaning. This government will hand out many titles to its mates .How long will Key wait because nothing is more certain than Sir John Key . which shows just what a farce the whole thing is.

  5. King Kong 5
    14 December 2012 at 12:31 pm

    If Finlayson was in it for the dough then I doubt he would have left Bell Gully, where he was earning at least 4 times what he does now, to become an MP.

    • Ed 5.1
      14 December 2012 at 12:43 pm

      So he became Attorney-General to give himself the title of Q.C.?

      • fender Viper 5.1.1
        14 December 2012 at 1:14 pm

        The whole NActUF Govt is QC

        Quantitatively Corrupt………IMO

      • Arkonaut 5.1.2
        14 December 2012 at 6:45 pm

        Um no Ed. If you remember it was his imminent departure from the legal profession into politics that was then non-lawyer Attorney-General Michael Cullen’s excuse, against official advice, to deny him a QC eight years ago.

    • tc 5.2
      14 December 2012 at 2:05 pm

      It’s about the power KK, and the ability to build up so much credit with mates in the ‘favour/you owe me’ bank.

      The money will always be there for the boys club members they crave the pleasure only ruling the serfs gives.

  6. Cato 6
    14 December 2012 at 2:51 pm

    I am sure this is what happened. Christopher Finlayson, in his pre-political days as an accomplished barrister with 9 appearances before the Judicial Branch of the Privy Council, sat down with his financial planner in 2004.

    Financial planner: “Gee Chris, you’re doing pretty well for yourself. Here’s what you want to do to take it to the next level. Next year, leave your chambers and abandon private practice to become a backbench list MP. Then work your way up to Attorney-General, arrange to have the law changed to restore the status of Queens Counsel. This will only work if you can get the government to restore honours generally, however, so you might need to bring back knighthoods as well.

    What you need to do then is get the Law Society and the Bar Society to recommend that the status be conferred upon you and then the last thing you need to fix up is for the CJ of the Supreme Court to approve the appointment.

    You can then quit your political career and return to private practice. You can then charge $950/hr instead of $750/hr and at that point, you should be set.”

    Get a grip.

  7. NoseViper (The Nose knows) 7
    14 December 2012 at 3:17 pm

    Obviously if you’re prominent you have to be eminent or vice versa.

  8. aerobubble 8
    14 December 2012 at 3:58 pm

    Key didn’t need to beat up the union movement to get the Hobbit film, he just wanted to blame someone for spending tax payer money. Globally movie goers have less money, are worried about prospects, and look to their unions as a social security. So it was unfathomable that Key would undermine the brand saleability of the Hobbit.

    Now Key’s government is attacking a highly respectable Judge in order to not pay compensation, and really do you think high caliber lawyers will be lining up to get named a QC. It reminds
    me of the SCOTUS when they declared for Bush against Gore, and Bush had nobody to replace for the next four years. Who would step down with the obvious conflict of interest observation.

    Because the law isn’t just the letter but the appearance as well. It would be funny if he is also the last QC.

    • karol 8.1
      14 December 2012 at 4:02 pm

      In the mean time, what does Finlayson’s QC status, enable him to do on behalf of the Key government?

      • ColonialPete 8.1.1
        14 December 2012 at 4:48 pm

        It’s pointless. It serves as a honour amongst barristers and as recognition of a senior and learned position in the profession. He can wear silk and lace at court rather than just the regular gown.

        • rosy viper 8.1.1.1
          14 December 2012 at 10:36 pm

          hmmm I wonder if that means he’s intending to take up the silk sometime soon? Is he going to do a Simon Power and ditch the Nacts?

    • Cato 8.2
      14 December 2012 at 4:03 pm

      Just to clarify: your prediction is that the Hobbit will suffer at the global box office because global movie goers will, out of sympathy with the NZ branch of Actors Equity, really frown upon the deal the Prime Minister made with Warner Brothers to have them made here?

      • King Kong 8.2.1
        14 December 2012 at 4:26 pm

        I know that alot of people refused to watch “Retun of the Jedi” because the midgets playing the ewoks didn’t get their own individual dressing rooms.

      • aerobubble 8.2.2
        16 December 2012 at 12:32 pm

        No, I’m saying Key’s own branding needs to be anti-union took precedence over the needs of the Hobbit movie brand.

        Anyway, just for the record, what you are saying is that thousands of workers in the movie industry have foregone union protections to keep work in NZ, and Key is muscling in and
        stealing off with their decision, and turning it into advertizing for his brand.

        Sorry, but I don’t buy this crap, first off I don’t buy that the Hobbit would not have been made here had the unions won, Key would have gotten out the cheque book. The tax payers paid.

        So I thank tax payers, I thank workers who gave up union affiliation, but Key is just gormless to think union bashing in the height of a ongoing global depression is considered and right.

        The reasons we don’t have the deprivation of the first Great depression is because of welfare,
        because of all the progress in innovation over the intervening period, otherwise it would be
        far worse consider how systemic and implicit are the debt to people, to nations, to the planet, are.

  9. The Al1en 9
    14 December 2012 at 5:17 pm

    Kin ‘el, some of you crack me up.

    Funniest thing of all is no-one’s objecting to Finlayson being called a c*nt.

    • terryg viper 9.1
      14 December 2012 at 6:48 pm

      I spotted that too Al1en, although Colonial Weka obliquely objected to it.

      And I’m explicitly objecting to it. Irrespective of converting it to a homophobic slur with the pejorative “queer”, cunt is about as sexist & misogynistic as it gets. and before anyone craps on about “nowadays its just an insult” it is, first and foremost, a crude term for vagina (having its roots in proto-germanic). the reason its an insult? misogyny, pure and simple.

      tsk tsk tsk VTO.

      • Populuxe1 9.1.1
        16 December 2012 at 3:51 pm

        Actually the roots of the c-world lie with a Hindu fertility goddess Cunda. Finlayson isn’t a cunt because a cunt is a wonderful, useful organ that brings life into the world and enjoyment for many.

  10. ak 10
    14 December 2012 at 8:34 pm

    Gotta admit but, he’s at least a weird cu….nundrum. Catholic in a party that relentlessly smashes the poor and vulnerable; openly gay qu… ixotic champion of treaty settlements after applauding the deliberate Brash racism that is the founding bedrock of modern National; voted against gay marriage. QC. Indeedy, deedy do.

  11. the pigman 11
    14 December 2012 at 8:48 pm

    This may stem from a misapprehension, but it was my understanding that one of the selling points of the SC title when it was introduced was that it was going to be able to be conferred on lawyers in the public sector, partners in law firms and not just barristers sole. Until then, as I recall, it was only barristers sole that could be conferred with the QC title.

    Did they not roll back that change? Does Finlayson not feel it a little taboo that he is conferring this status while still Attorney-General? Seems like a bad look to me.

  12. Populuxe1 12
    15 December 2012 at 3:28 pm

    I see vto hasn’t “manned” up yet

  13. SPC 13
    16 December 2012 at 12:27 am

    Has Tamihere beeen invited to offer his perpective on the re-instatement of the title QC?

  14. Dv 14
    16 December 2012 at 12:39 pm

    DEAR HARRY
    Thank for the offer.
    We would like to borrow 5 billion to get us through Xmas.

    Yours in anticipation

    J Key

    [lprent: 🙂 Spam creeping through damnit. ]

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.