ImperatorFish: A Statement By John Banks

Written By: - Date published: 3:33 pm, April 30th, 2012 - 50 comments
Categories: john banks, Satire - Tags:

Scott at Imperator Fish has kindly given us permission to syndicate posts from his blog – the original of this post is here.

On Sunday morning I made it clear to Paul Holmes on TVNZ’s Q&A current affairs show that I didn’t come up the river on a cabbage boat.

I am aware that a number of my enemies are trying to catch me out, and I fully expect they will be looking to twist my words. So in order to “front-foot” this matter, as the saying goes, I am making the following statement.

I have no recollection of ever travelling on any cabbage boat. I have gone on a number of river journeys over the years, and I don’t ever remember seeing crates of cabbages on any of the vessels I sailed on.

If any cabbages were being transported during those river sojourns, then it was certainly not something brought to my attention. Having said that, it would be unreasonable to expect a politician to go below and inspect every single crate of cargo for hidden cabbages, every time he wanted to go on a river cruise.

Anyone who knows me will tell you that I have been scrupulous in avoiding cabbages throughout my political career. As far as I am aware I have only ever eaten cabbage once during my political career, but this was an error due to a catering mix-up, and I disclosed the matter to everyone at the dinner table at the time. I was so concerned at the catering mix-up that I sought and obtained assurances from the people involved that it was a genuine error, and I have sworn affidavits to that effect from those people.

So I have nothing to hide, and I welcome any enquiry into my eating habits.

But let me be clear, in case footage subsequently emerges of me eating coleslaw or sprawled among piles of cabbages on the deck of a boat as it winds its way up some river, that any statement I may have made in the past about my cabbage-related activities was made in good faith and to the best of my knowledge.

I have been in politics most of my working life, and I meet a lot of people and go to a lot of lunches and dinners. I can’t always control the meals served to me, and rather than offend my hosts with demands for cabbage-free meals, I often request that they don’t reveal whether or not they have put cabbage on my plate. By telling my hosts to make the cabbage out to be anonymous I am avoiding future problems, both for me and for my hosts. This is all above board, and if you ask any law professor whether my eating habits have broken any laws they’ll tell you you’re being ridiculous.

It is true that I have eaten bok choy several times, and although I am aware that some people refer to bok choy as “Chinese cabbage”, I refuse to accept that my failure to declare my consumption of bok choy has in any way been misleading or dishonest.

I lead a party that is fighting hard to make New Zealand a better place, and I’m not interested in sideshows about brassica varieties that I may or may not have inadvertently eaten, especially when there are thousands of kids in South Auckland going hungry, for whom a decent cabbage meal would be a luxury.

So even if it turned out that I had a cabbage fetish and secretly enjoyed filming myself rolling around in the stuff in the basement of my house while listening to Whitney Houston’s Greatest Love of All, why would that be a problem?

Anyone who suggests I have done anything wrong is just trying to cause political mischief. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a helicopter to catch.

50 comments on “ImperatorFish: A Statement By John Banks ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. ghostwhowalksnz 1
    30 April 2012 at 3:43 pm

    Banks has become the very last Cabbage Patch Kid

    Looks like it will be his epitaph

  2. Kaplan 2
    30 April 2012 at 4:25 pm

    Where did he come up with that term anyway? Given the apparent state of his memory powers any boat with JB on it could perhaps be considered a cabbage boat?

    Maybe he just likes riddles?

    A man needs to cross a creek. There is a boat he can take. But, the boat can only take one thing at a time. The man has 3 things he must take. A fox, a sheep, and cabbage. If he were to take fox, then the sheep would eat the cabbage. But, if he were to take the cabbage, then the fox would eat the sheep. How does the man take the items across?

    • Hayden 2.1
      30 April 2012 at 4:36 pm

      Throw the cabbage over, take the fox in the boat, leave the fox with the cabbage, come back and get the sheep.

      • TheContrarian 2.1.1
        30 April 2012 at 4:37 pm

        Eat the sheep, shoot the fox, sell the cabbage at the local market.

        • felix 2.1.1.1
          30 April 2012 at 4:57 pm

          National Party solution ^

          • TheContrarian 2.1.1.1.1
            30 April 2012 at 5:01 pm

            Humourous, off the cuff statements are indicative of party politics? Interesting…though I fail to see how it is a National Party solution

            • felix 2.1.1.1.1.1
              30 April 2012 at 5:08 pm

              “Humourous, off the cuff statements are indicative of party politics?”

              Don’t think I alluded to your politics at all. Let me check… nope. Touchy though.

              “Interesting…though I fail to see how it is a National Party solution”

              Who gives a fuck? From what I’ve observed of you so far you fail to see a lot of things even when they’re clearly and painstakingly and unambiguously explained to you.

              Hint: My comment wasn’t any more serious than yours. Pity only one of us got that.

              • TheContrarian …
                30 April 2012 at 5:11 pm

                “Don’t think I alluded to your politics at all”
                I didn’t think you did either.

                “I’ve observed of you so far you fail to see a lot of things even when they’re clearly and painstakingly and unambiguously explained to you.”
                What you observe is irreverent, I see things very clearly. Because i don’t agree doesn’t mean I didn’t understand.

                “My comment wasn’t any more serious than yours. Pity only one of us got that.”
                I know – I was teasing you. Nice to see that a gentle poke causes swearing and abusive comments though. Stay classy.

                • felix …
                  30 April 2012 at 5:30 pm

                  1. Yeah you did, you said so. And I quoted the bit where you said so.

                  2. Whatever

                  3. Sure. But then you wouldn’t get to pretend I think that “Humourous, off the cuff statements are indicative of party politics”. Dur.

        • mike e 2.1.1.2
          30 April 2012 at 10:01 pm

          He may not have come up river in a cabbage boat,
          but he’s going down the river on a garbage boat!

    • vto 2.2
      30 April 2012 at 8:42 pm

      Take the sheep first, then come back for the cabbage next. Then on the way back to get the fox take the sheep with you and plonk old wool back on the original bank while you then take the fox across. The fox can then roll up some cabbage while you go back one last time to get the sheep. Then all share a big fat dotcom joint and forget to tie the dinghy up because you have all been busy debating its decriminalisation., thereby stranding forever on the wrong side of the wai until the tide goes out far enough to wade across because it was only ever knee deep.

  3. Frank Macskasy 3
    30 April 2012 at 4:30 pm

    One of these things is not like the other…

    Pansy Wong. Richard Worth. Phil Heatley.John Banks.

  4. TheContrarian 4
    30 April 2012 at 4:35 pm

    “One of these things is not like the other…
    Pansy Wong. Richard Worth. Phil Heatley.John Banks.”

    That’d be Heatley because he was cleared.

    • Frank Macskasy 4.1
      30 April 2012 at 7:20 pm

      Wrong. Heatley admitted wrongdoing (through minor, in the grand scheme of things).

      Try again.

      • TheContrarian 4.1.1
        30 April 2012 at 7:36 pm

        OK, he was cleared of any ‘deliberate’ wrongdoing. Wong, Worth and no doubt John Banks (I think so anyway) took deliberate actions they knew to be wrong.
        But if you can point to any evidence that shows intent/dishonesty whatever on his part I am happy to be shown otherwise because as I see it there was no intent.

        • Frank Macskasy 4.1.1.1
          30 April 2012 at 7:45 pm

          ???

          WTF are you on about???

          Warning; I don’t do “hair splitting” very well. And I get bored very easily with people who ride off on a tangeant or ask pointless questions.

          Read this… http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/key-on-banks-staunch-stupid-or-stuck/

          … then get back to us.

          • TheContrarian 4.1.1.1.1
            30 April 2012 at 9:38 pm

            I am sorry, I don’t see the relevance. Heatley was cleared but Wong, Worth (and I suspect the same thing of Banks) were not.

            • Frank Macskasy 4.1.1.1.1.1
              30 April 2012 at 10:20 pm

              You “don’t see the relevance”…

              Oh, dear. Sorry, my bad. I mistook you for someone who could understand issues.

              Worth was never found guilty of anything. He was never formally charged. He resigned “of his own accord”,

              ““Dr Worth tendered his resignation to me last night, and I have accepted it. He advised me of some private matters in respect of which he felt it appropriate that he should resign as a Minister. I accepted his resignation and have advised the Governor-General accordingly.””

              Wong was cleared as well, in case you hadn’t noticed;

              “…Speaker of the House, Lockwood Smith, found “no evidence of systemic abuse”.”

              In reality, it’s not that you “don’t see the relevance” – it’s because you don’t want to see the relevance. But that’s your problem, not mine.

              “Contrarian” you might be – but Credible you are not. Don’t expect to be viewed too seriously from now on…

              • TheContrarian …
                1 May 2012 at 8:34 am

                Itrs OK, I don’t mind being wrong

                • TheContrarian …
                  1 May 2012 at 9:01 am

                  but, for fucks sake, I am not trying to debate you about what heatley did wrong. I just wanted to know what you thought the difference was. Is it because Key hasn’t asked Banks to step down as of yet (your blog piece suggests so)? If so i think it is only a matter of time but i don’t think the reasoning you come up with is correct though – The National majority will still hold because they’ll run Goldsmith in a by election and he’ll likely win.

  5. the pink postman 5
    30 April 2012 at 4:44 pm

    My advice to Banks is .”Beware of Germans bearing gifts”
    ” Apologies to Virgi’s Aeneid”

  6. Chaz 6
    30 April 2012 at 5:15 pm

    Take the Sheep
    Come back
    Take the fox,
    Come back with the sheep
    Take the cabbage
    Come back
    Take the sheep.

    Banks is obviously innocent.

  7. Pascal's bookie 7
    30 April 2012 at 5:49 pm

    Jesus wept. I’m happy enough to accept thatBbanks didnae come down nae rivers on any sort of cabbage loaded thing, be it barge, boat, skiff or anything else. No problem.

    But he’s just randomly denying all sorts of shit now. What the hell is he hiding? His Id is a fucked up place I tell you what.

    http://bit.ly/JmEhJo

    “I’ve had no relationship with dotcom, he is a married man”

    I don’t care if he has or not, but it’s nae been suggested by anyone; that’s just floating to his tongue from some reflexive part of his brain right there.

    • felix 7.1
      30 April 2012 at 5:57 pm

      lolz. I like the one where the interviewer says “you had donations to your mayoral campaign from sky city, and two from dotcom” and his response is “I’ve never been to sky city with dotcom”.

      Amazing.

      But the faux outrage and shutting down the convo by pretending to misunderstand the “relationship” thing, not once but twice, it’s the kind of stuff junkies do and think is clever. Phew, managed to put her off the scent with my trickyness. Nobody suspects a thing.

    • Anne 7.2
      30 April 2012 at 6:48 pm

      Nah… I thought. PB’s playing silly buggers. So I listened. Jesus Christ, he said it!

      I have never had sex with that… :

      • coolas 7.2.1
        30 April 2012 at 8:12 pm

        Is that tape real? Banksie’s reaction is so out there. He’s a fruit isn’t he? … fruit cake that is. Nutty as.

        • felix 7.2.1.1
          30 April 2012 at 8:30 pm

          He is a truly fractured individual. The darkness reaching out for the darkness, as it were.

  8. james 111 8
    30 April 2012 at 6:03 pm

    Can some one please tell me from the moaning left what Law John Banks has broken under the Local Body act? as we arent talking about the Electoral Act here.

    It was pertaining to Local Body Elections. There is a lot of puffery coming from Labour Please come forward and tell what Law he has broken from the 2001 Local body act none that I can see damp squib definitely egg on face oh yes yet again!

    • dd 8.1
      30 April 2012 at 6:15 pm

      At this point I couldn’t care less if he’s convicted or not. The guy has been shown to be the moron he is. It’s great entertainment.

      The latest interview on radio live has got be one of the most amusing I have heard.

      http://www.radiolive.co.nz/AUDIO-John-Banks-denies-Dotcom-relationship-cites-marriage-as-impediment/tabid/506/articleID/27665/Default.aspx

      • james 111 8.1.1
        30 April 2012 at 6:26 pm

        Fine understand that but Labour is telling Key to stand him down! For what ? What Law has John Banks broken none!
        Surely Labour needs to get it facts right and at least know what electoral act they are talking about before they ask for some one to stand down when they have committed no crime under the laws of the land.

        • Frank Macskasy 8.1.1.1
          1 May 2012 at 1:03 am

          What Law has John Banks broken none!

          Here you go; educate yourself.

          The Law:

          Local Electoral Act 2001
          http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2001/0035/latest/DLM93301.html

          The Relevant Section:

          109 Return of electoral expenses

          (1) Within 55 days after the day on which the successful candidates at any election are declared to be elected, every candidate at the election must transmit to the electoral officer a return setting out—

          (a) the candidate’s electoral expenses; and

          (b) the name and address of each person who made an electoral donation to the candidate and the amount of each electoral donation; and

          (c) if an electoral donation of money or of the equivalent of money is made to the candidate anonymously and the amount of that donation exceeds $1,000,—

          (i) the amount of that donation; and

          (ii) the fact that it has been received anonymously.

          (2) Every return under subsection (1) must be in the form prescribed in Schedule 2 or to similar effect.

          (3) If the candidate is outside New Zealand on the day on which the successful candidates are declared to be elected, the return must be transmitted by the candidate to the electoral officer within 21 days after the date of the candidate’s return to New Zealand.

          (4) It is the duty of every electoral officer to ensure that this section is complied with.

          And the relevant Form to fill out, as prescribed under Schedule 2, Return of electoral expenses and electoral donations;

          Under section 109 of the Local Electoral Act 2001

          I, AB, a candidate at the election held on the day of 20 , make the following return of all electoral expenses incurred by me or on my behalf at the election and of all electoral donations made to me or to any person on my behalf.
          Electoral expenses

          [Here set out separately the name and description of every person or body of persons to whom or which any sum was paid, and the reason for which it was paid. Sums paid for radio broadcasting, television broadcasting, newspaper advertising, posters, pamphlets, etc, must be set out separately and under separate headings.]
          Electoral donations

          [Here set out the name and description of every person or body of persons from whom or which any donation (whether of money or of the equivalent of money or of goods or services or of a combination of those things) of a sum or value of more than $1,000 (such amount being inclusive of any goods and services tax and of a series of donations made by or on behalf of any one person that aggregate more than $1,000 (inclusive of any goods and services tax)) was received by the candidate or by any other person on the candidate’s behalf for use by or on behalf of the candidate in the campaign for his or her election. The amount of each donation received is to be set out separately. If a donation of a sum of more than $1,000 was received from an anonymous person, the amount of the donation must be stated and the fact that the person who made the donation is anonymous must also be stated.]

          Dated at this day of 20 .

          AB

          It’s fairly simple, and someone of Banks’ education (?!) should understand it. As I learnt in my younger, wilder, and somewhat irresponsible dyears, “ignorance of the law is no excuse – it’s just laughed at”.

      • Hateatea 8.1.2
        30 April 2012 at 8:46 pm

        That was a seriously bizarre telephone call. Are we sure that it was Banks?

      • ianmac 8.1.3
        30 April 2012 at 11:25 pm

        How weird is that! Thanks dd.

    • Colonial Viper 8.2
      30 April 2012 at 6:29 pm

      james 111…why are you backing an obviously bad liar and obfuscator who clearly played fast, hard and loose with electoral funding and can’t be bothered to be straight up with New Zealanders?

    • rosy 8.3
      30 April 2012 at 6:32 pm

      Just as with Key and the teapot tapes, the police are being called in to investigate if Banks has broken the electoral law. Is that too difficult to understand?

      dd – thanks for that. Seriously weird, as was his tweet on Sunday, spotted by Pascal’s Bookie…

      https://twitter.com/#!/JohnBanksPR/status/196026714650984448 – “Up is down. Left is right. White is black. Dotcom will be free and I’ll go to jail”

      As an aside, I have problems working out how Banks can claim an anonymous donation when the donations were by personal and company cheques. If I remember rightly these cheques have the payer account name printed on them, under the amount line, and that name ends up on the payee bank statement. Now if it was an internet transfer or cash in an envelope (a different can of worms) Banks may have a point.

      • james 111 8.3.1
        30 April 2012 at 6:43 pm

        Rosy
        Wrong nothing to do with Electoral Law totally different law as it was Local Body 2001 Local body act .That is where the problem is for the lefties he has done nothing wrong

        • felix 8.3.1.1
          30 April 2012 at 7:06 pm

          Sorry james but you have no idea what you’re talking about. It’s the Local Electoral Act 2001. And what he’s (allegedly) done wrong is falsified his declaration, as you’d know if you hadn’t been living under a rock.

        • rosy 8.3.1.2
          30 April 2012 at 7:15 pm

          o.k.
          Just as with Key and the teapot tapes, the police are being called in to investigate if Banks has broken the Local Electoral Act 2001, section 109 ‘return of electoral expenses’ law.

          http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2001/0035/latest/DLM94759.html …Happy now, or should I apologise for using shorthand terms?

          Because there is some reason to suspect he may have declared a donation anonymous when he knew the donor, it’s been referred to the police to see if there is evidence that he MAY have broken the law referring to anonymous donations. The police will decide if there is enough evidence to suggest he has and then the courts will decide if he’s done nothing wrong. And you have a problem with that, hmmm.

          And whaddaya reckon about that cheque info going onto bank statements – should he look at his own bank statements before declaring a donation anonymous? It might be a good idea for the courts to clarify, imo.

    • felix 8.4
      30 April 2012 at 6:38 pm

      “Please come forward and tell what Law he has broken from the 2001 Local body act none that I can see “

      That’s cos you haven’t read it. And I know you haven’t because you don’t know what it’s called. And even if you did, you wouldn’t understand it. And even if you understood it you’d pretend you didn’t so you could keep spouting gibberish like the above.

    • Mel 8.5
      30 April 2012 at 7:00 pm

      @ james 111
      It might surprise you James, but New Zealanders expect Cabinet Ministers to have a high degree of integrity and morality. 
       
       

      • james 111 8.5.1
        30 April 2012 at 7:19 pm

        He did nothing wrong the donation was made anonymously in Local Body Law nothing wrong with that. Total different to the Electorate act law

        • felix 8.5.1.1
          30 April 2012 at 8:37 pm

          james it’s the Local Electoral Act 2001 that applies here. And as rosy points out, specifically section 109.

          That’s about the 3rd or fourth time it’s been pointed out to you this evening btw, which shows you’re not reading the replies to your comments and just plowing ahead repeating your bullshit over and over long after it’s been shown to be false.

          Didn’t you get banned for that not so long ago?

          [lprent: yes. And I will be double up unhappy if he is doing what you claim. ]

    • Frank Macskasy 8.6
      30 April 2012 at 7:22 pm

      James, if a Labour politician had done the same thing, you wouldn’t be asking that same question.

      Being an apologist for someone willing to rort the campaign-donations laws is not a good look.

  9. Adrian 9
    30 April 2012 at 9:51 pm

    Is a certain polly who is currently in the shit a meth user? It certainly sounds like it.

    • felix 9.1
      30 April 2012 at 10:01 pm

      I wouldn’t like to speculate but it’s not the sort of behaviour you usually see from anyone who isn’t a meth user.

  10. Jenny 10
    30 April 2012 at 10:58 pm

    John Banks can’t recall anything –

    And pigs have wings. Yeah right.

    But the sea around him is getting boiling hot.

    And talking about cabbages and the probable fall of kings.

    With just a little bit of imagination Mr Dotcom could look a bit like a walrus and John Banks a yeoman carpenter.

    “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
    “To speak of many things:
    Of shoes–and ships–and sealing-wax–
    Of cabbages–and kings–
    And why the sea is boiling hot–
    And whether pigs have wings.”

    With even less imagination, the rest of us could do as stand ins for the oysters.

    The Walrus and the Carpenter
    Walked on a mile or so,
    And then they rested on a rock
    Conveniently low:
    And all the little Oysters stood
    And waited in a row.

    “A loaf of bread,” the Walrus said,
    “Is what we chiefly need:
    Pepper and vinegar besides
    Are very good indeed–
    Now if you’re ready, Oysters dear,
    We can begin to feed.”

    “But not on us!” the Oysters cried,
    Turning a little blue.
    “After such kindness, that would be
    A dismal thing to do!”
    “The night is fine,” the Walrus said.
    “Do you admire the view?

    “It was so kind of you to come!
    And you are very nice!”
    The Carpenter said nothing but
    “Cut us another slice:
    I wish you were not quite so deaf–
    I had to to ask you (to pay me) twice!”

    “It seems a shame,” the Walrus said,
    “To play them such a trick,
    After we’ve brought them out so far,
    And made them trot so quick!”
    The Carpenter said nothing but
    “The butter’s spread too thick!”

    Kim Dotcom and John Banks at the beach