Nat Civil War: ceasefire breached

90 comments on “Nat Civil War: ceasefire breached ”

• Comments are now closed

1. ad 1

   9 May 2012 at 7:53 am

   Are these factions or simply rogue spinoffs or something of both? Odd to have Slater-Lusk, Boag-and-deepblueAuckland, and Collins, and Joyce, all jockeying at the same time. Key’s personal popularity remains strong even if slightly weakened. If I were him I would be swinging people like Eagleson into the action to bang heads – the welfare moves feel like good hard spin in action.

   Such a relief to watch another party rift rather than Labour. Labour’s own remit conferences will be interesting to see activists coalescing around MPs.

   It’s beginning to feel like Key’s just holding it together until Budget, after which the Banks Police report will come in and things get a whole lot harder.

   Hope the next dinner Shearer has is with Russell Norman, geting ready for a real and integrated tilt. We need to start the campaign for 2014 much earlier this time. Like this year.
   • Armchair Critic 1.1

     9 May 2012 at 8:40 am

     the welfare moves feel like good hard spin in action.
     they are good hard spin, a veneer of common sense masking a deplorable and disgusting philosophy. The last attempt at distraction from the Banks debacle (legislation to discourage alien invasions – WTF?) was pretty ineffective.
     • Pete George 1.1.1

       9 May 2012 at 8:52 am

       You do realise that in amongst all the “scandals” there’s an imminent budget and it’s not uncommon for actual government business to get a bit of an airing too amongst all the fluff?

       Or are you suggesting Paula Bennet anticipated and coordinated her release with Trevor Mallard’s grand announcements before the media that got the same information beat him to it.
       • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.1

         9 May 2012 at 9:08 am

         Or are you suggesting Paula Bennet anticipated and coordinated her release with Trevor Mallard’s grand announcements before the media that got the same information beat him to it.

         Uh, it looks like YOU just suggested that.
       • Armchair Critic 1.1.1.2

         9 May 2012 at 9:27 am

         With regard to your first question, yes, and the second qquestion, no
   • dan1 1.2

     9 May 2012 at 8:30 pm

     Just look at Key’s eyes. Dead man walking. He knows what is in store. It is sad. He is out of his depth. Fascinating politics.
2. higherstandard 2

   9 May 2012 at 7:55 am

   I’m sure Cameron Slater loves the attention he gets from this site.
   • Colonial Viper 2.1

     9 May 2012 at 9:10 am

     He can get even more if he leaks us jucier stuff from the top 🙂
3. Sanctuary 3

   9 May 2012 at 8:09 am

   Rod Lingard must be worried, they are stealing his business!
4. mickysavage 4

   9 May 2012 at 8:13 am

   I found Key’s interview last night on TV3 fascinating.  And can’t think but he told porkies.  First he was not aware of any problems and then when he realised TV3 had the minutes he downplayed them.  

   It appears he has been given lessons by John Banks on the handling of crises and on how to retain information in his memory.

   And you really get the feeling that in their pursuit of winning the leadership battle they have lost sight of what for all political parties should be the ultimate goal, the Government benches.
   • Colonial Viper 4.1

     9 May 2012 at 9:11 am

     Or the ultimate goal of helping the people of NZ and this great country get ahead and stay ahead in what is going to be a very difficult next 25 years.
5. Hilary 5

   9 May 2012 at 8:22 am

   MS – In that TV3 piece there were some interesting expressions on the faces of other National Party MPs.
6. captain hook 6

   9 May 2012 at 8:39 am

   seems like there is a need for a new defintion for the national party.
7. deuto 7

   9 May 2012 at 8:42 am

   Re the DomPost article linked to in the post, it would be interesting to know who the five Nat MPS were that attended the Puhoi conference in January and the two who attended the April conference in Christchurch.

   Found the following at the end of the article hilarious:

   A National insider denied there was a serous rift.

   “Simon’s a bit of a loose element. … but there’s no civil war in National. There’s not a lot [of relevance] apart from there are people in the National party who don’t like each other.”

   People who don’t like one another within the party is not a rift or potential rift?
   • ghostwhowalksnz 7.1

     9 May 2012 at 9:35 am

     For National insider , read David Farrar. Hes playing the one armed paper hanger role here
8. deuto 8

   9 May 2012 at 8:42 am

   Ooops – for some reason that went up twice and it would not let me cancel the second one.
9. Pete George 9

   9 May 2012 at 8:47 am

   “we got tipped off”, “Our stringer”, “we never covered the meeting.” “we were sent”

   Eddie, seems like you are talking on behalf of multiple people. Is it not unreasonable to expect that you say who you are speaking for? Or have you posted something given to you by someone else and have forgotten to attribute it?
   • Zetetic 9.1

     9 May 2012 at 8:57 am

     Eddie’s writing about material sent to The Standard – the we referred to is Standard authors.

     The Standard doesn’t do ghost written pieces, unlike farrar and slater.

     Think carefully before making such insinuations again.
     • Pete George 9.1.1

       9 May 2012 at 9:22 am

       I wasn’t insinuating, I was asking. It gets a bit confusing here.

       Sometimes we are told very strongly that we must attribute what we include in comments. Sometimes it doesn’t seem to matter.

       This was posted under Eddie’s name, usually generic or joint efforts are posted under “The Standard”. There was nothing in the post that explained this was “The Standard” posting.

       “the we referred to is Standard authors.”

       And that is also confusing, because as we are often reminded “The Standard” is not a single entity, it is a bunch of individuals who usdually post independently under a common banner.
       • Deano 9.1.1.1

         9 May 2012 at 10:01 am

         it’s turtles all the way down, Pete
   • mickysavage 9.2

     9 May 2012 at 8:58 am

     We are witnessing civil war breaking out in National’s ranks, the leaking of highly sensitive information possibly from within the PM’s office, the destabilizing of the Government and Petey wants to speculate on who Eddie might be …
10. Sanctuary 10

    9 May 2012 at 8:51 am

    You know Pete George is completely banned at the dimpost and things are going along swimmingly without him… Just sayin.
    • mickysavage 10.1

      9 May 2012 at 8:53 am

      +1
      • Pete George 10.1.1

        9 May 2012 at 9:07 am

        While trying to talk up “civil war” with the other lot…

        Labour faces Samoan ire in Mangere

        Labour’s Mangere MP Su’a William Sio is facing a rebellion from a big group of his own Samoan people who plan to stand their own candidate against him.

        I’d have thought that the Chair of Labour’s Auckland-Northland Regional Council would be more concerned about his own “rebellions” than putting all his focus into petty interparty pointscoring.
        • deuto 10.1.1.1

          9 May 2012 at 9:26 am

          WARNING – attempted diversion. Please do not feed the troll.
        • mickysavage 10.1.1.2

          9 May 2012 at 9:39 am

          You know Petey as I type this you have made five comments on this page.  They cover a number of subjects such as the budget, who Eddie is and who he or she is speaking for, possible problems in Mangere because Sua William Sio thinks that some collectors are too exuberant, and whether or not you are banned from dimpost.

          You have not addressed the subject matter once, not even to decry gotcha politics which in this case admittedly is a completely stupid thing to say.

          You aren’t trying to divert attention or destroy the thread are you? 
          • Pete George 10.1.1.2.1

            9 May 2012 at 10:07 am

            You’re right, it’d be a quiet post if I hadn’t commented – it’s worth noting that for every one of my comments there’s several associated comments – no diversions or varied topics amongst them?

            But it’s hard to get excited about differences within a party – without which we’d probably have leaks about how conformist everyone was forced to be.
            • grassroots 10.1.1.2.1.1

              9 May 2012 at 10:13 am

              Bzztt
               
              Further attempted diversion attempted.
               
              DNFTT
    • Pete George 10.2

      9 May 2012 at 8:55 am

      Odd, how do you know that? I’m not aware of anything specific like that, Danyl doesn’t appear to have guts to say anything about his censorships – to me, anyway.
      • Colonial Viper 10.2.1

        9 May 2012 at 9:13 am

        Censorship? Banning you is simply exercising a reasonable sense of decorum, surely.
      • bbfloyd 10.2.2

        9 May 2012 at 1:31 pm

        actually petey… your comments are just clutter…..i stop reading the comment section when you start monopolising it….it just get rather self serving and tedious….

        and to put your last comment in rational perspective… if you weren’t commenting here, then we may be able to actually have a useful discussion…… you really are becoming a pest…..

        the only reason i’m bothering this time is to inform you of an opinion i have held since the first time you spoiled a perfectly good discussion with your party political drivel…
    • deuto 10.3

      9 May 2012 at 9:34 am

      Agreed that there is a marked difference/improvement without his continual diversions/trite comments. Don’t know whether or not he was formally banned or whether the scathing nature of many of the responses to his comments led him to desist commenting there.
      • tc 10.3.1

        9 May 2012 at 10:49 am

        Would clean up alot of diversionary and irrelevant dross off the many threads PG jumps on.

        It’s the one he leaves alone that say alot about the diversionary trolling he indulges in all cloaked in waffly statements and links to his site to appear ‘reasonable’.
        • Pete George 10.3.1.1

          9 May 2012 at 11:16 am

          It’s the one he leaves alone

          Are you suggesting I shouldn’t leave any alone so as to appear balanced?

          Don’t worry, I don’t intend posting on more things – apart from not having the time or inclination many topics simply don’t interest me, some I think are too ridiculous to bother with, and some topics I keep and eye on to see where they are going and to learn from them.

          Why do you leave some things alone? Are you a diversionary drosser or something?
          • bbfloyd 10.3.1.1.1

            9 May 2012 at 1:34 pm

            thanks for that petey…. so i can look forward to not having to skim past the “pete george” section to get to the real debate? that’s fantastic news….

            btw…you do the “sniff and stalk off in a dignified huff” really really well…
11. Hillary 11

    9 May 2012 at 8:57 am

    “cash” to cover lunch, dinner, venue!!!?????

    Why does Slater deal in cash?
    Does the lunches, dinner & venue become a ‘business’ expenses?
    Is this cash declared?
    Does Slater have any business operating?
    Who with?
    How many?
    Where are they registered?
    NZ or offshore?
    Has Cactus Kate given Slater any advice about offshore entities?
    Where does Slater get his fees from?
    How does Slater survive financially?
    Does Slater get advertising revenue from his website?
    Does Lusk pay Slater to write stories pro / anti candidates?
    Does Slater get fees from candidates as part of the Slater/Lusk duo?
    Is Slater still collecting a Winz/sickness benefit?
    How does Slater pay for lavish drinks and means on a beneficiary income?
    Is Slater obtaining an income or earnings from businesses?

    So many unanswered questions.

    Maybe someone has some answers?
    • Sanctuary 11.1

      9 May 2012 at 9:00 am

      Or perhaps someone could raise this “cash” stipulation with the IRD?
      • ghostwhowalksnz 11.1.1

        9 May 2012 at 11:30 am

        It just means they have no eftpos/credit card facilities.
        I wouldnt read too much into the cash only comment.

        Would have to show IRD the venture was for business purposes to claim the cost of venue hire -airfares, so declaring the money is best way to do it.
        • felix 11.1.1.1

          9 May 2012 at 4:39 pm

          *Declaring some of the money, hence the requirement for cash only.
    • felix 11.2

      9 May 2012 at 9:17 am

      Also, “is the $100 fee GST inclusive?”
    • deuto 11.3

      9 May 2012 at 9:18 am

      LOL – great list of questions! I am sure many people would be interested in the answers to these.

      Perhaps someone should raise these questions with IRD and/or WINZ. They both have confidential phone numbers to discuss possible fraud/misuse of benefits etc

      IRD – 0800 225 610
      WINZ – 0800 556 006.
    • tracey 11.4

      9 May 2012 at 9:35 am

      My understanding is that he has never collected from WINZ. Apparently his insurance covered mental illness.
      • ghostwhowalksnz 11.4.1

        9 May 2012 at 9:38 am

        Well it did , until they stopped paying it because he was back ‘working’
        He made a big fuss about taking on Fidelity Life, and how he doesnt back down. But its been quiet on that front for a year or two.
        Could be on the civil list or his lawyer told him he doesnt have a real chance of success unless they settle at the ‘steps of the court’
        • Tracey 11.4.1.1

          9 May 2012 at 10:22 am

          I have no time for him, his methods and his deep seated anger, however I don’t believe he would be stupid enough to draw a benefit given his stance on those very things.
          • ghostwhowalksnz 11.4.1.1.1

            9 May 2012 at 10:48 am

            His wife works so that wouldnt be possible
            • Akldnut 11.4.1.1.1.1

              9 May 2012 at 1:55 pm

              If I remember correctly he took a trip to Egypt about 12-18 months ago, he wouldn’t have been able to do that while on the dole.
              • Kevin Welsh …

                9 May 2012 at 4:14 pm

                I thought that was Farrar?
                • Akldnut …

                  9 May 2012 at 10:09 pm

                  Yeah your right, looks like I picked up a bit of Bank’s memory after reading about him so much. ha
          • John M 11.4.1.1.2

            9 May 2012 at 3:16 pm

            He definitely was getting a sickness benefit and he definitely isn’t getting one now. Issue though is how did he present his finances including assets or income received from those assets in order to qualify for a sickness benefit? Hillary asked what advice did he get from Cactus Kate on offshore arrangements but I wonder whether the question should be what advice did he get from her on how to structure his finances so that WINZ still paid him a sickness benefit? I always thought you had to have pretty much nothing to get a benefit so surely structuring (or hiding) money to get a benefit is fraud? Anyone know about the benefit rules?
            • Descendant Of Smith 11.4.1.1.2.1

              9 May 2012 at 7:28 pm

              “I always thought you had to have pretty much nothing to get a benefit ”

              When advocating for people this is one of the phrases I used to dislike the most.

              So many people were left with nothing because they were told this – in some sad cases (when workers were laid off from a firm by an idiot union delegate who decided he knew better than the Social Welfare staff (I’m showing my age now) who had explained things quite clearly)) people spent up to $60,000 in redundancy before seeking benefit assistance.

              Benefits such as unemployment and sickness and DPB are not asset tested they are only income tested. The income off any assets is income and may reduce the benefit.

              Addition payments such as food assistance and accommodation assistance is asset tested.

              The information is not hard to find out.
              • John M …

                10 May 2012 at 12:25 am

                Sure, so did Cactus Kate advise Slater how to hide assets so he could get the accommodation benefit and how to hide income from those assets so he could get the sickness benefit?
                • Cactus Kate …

                  13 May 2012 at 3:05 pm

                  Hilarious. A local accountant from West Auckland would be far more useful to use for that than me. Funnily enough getting around a few hundred dollars at WINZ doesn’t really rip the kilt nor provide me with income to keep me in the style I am accustomed to. I never did that sort of work even when I was in NZ.
    • mac1 11.5

      9 May 2012 at 9:39 am

      Haven’t they just learned, slow though they be, that cheques for services rendered cause problems a la Bankie? They can be photocopied, traced, used as evidence of fraud, corroborate individual involvement……. useful things, cheques.
    • Cactus Kate 11.6

      13 May 2012 at 3:00 pm

      What utterly dumb questions.
      If Slater had offshore cash stashed away then he could pay more often for bloody lunch.
      I prefer my clientele to be ones that pay me. I know it is a hard concept to deal with but charity has never begun at home with me.
12. Ugy 12

    9 May 2012 at 9:51 am

    Is the insurance company still covering him?
    • ghostwhowalksnz 12.1

      9 May 2012 at 10:54 am

      No. Thats what all the talk about ‘suing the pants off them’ was about.
      His previous business went bust which was the trigger for his depression.
      But that sort of illness is pretty certain for someone like him who exits all the symptoms of Oppositional defiant disorder. Usually starts in childhood and symptoms are
      Actively does not follow adults’ requests

      Angry and resentful of others

      Argues with adults

      Blames others for own mistakes

      Has few or no friends or has lost friends

      Is in constant trouble in school

      Loses temper

      Spiteful or seeks revenge

      Touchy or easily annoyed

      Not necessary to have every sympton
      • ianmac 12.1.1

        9 May 2012 at 11:34 am

        Crikey ghost! That’s me to a Tee! No wonder my Mum tied me to the clothesline as a kid!
      • Matthew Whitehead 12.1.2

        9 May 2012 at 4:04 pm

        Can we please not discuss Slater’s illness(es) and benefits in a public forum? Not just because it treats mental illness as a football, but also because it’s a distraction from the many legitimately unacceptable things Slater does that he can be rightfully criticised for.

        His benefit shouldn’t be up for public discussion, either, if he received one. If he’s committed fraud to get one, then that’s something that should be forwarded to the authorities, and only discussed publicly if they fail to act on that information.
        • felix 12.1.2.1

          9 May 2012 at 4:36 pm

          +1 WINZ are big and ugly enough to sort him out if need be without any of our help.
        • ghostwhowalksnz 12.1.2.2

          9 May 2012 at 5:03 pm

          Its in the public domain- mostly by Slater himself.
13. Dr Terry 13

    9 May 2012 at 12:52 pm

    I hope that everybody has read the reports concerning this country posted on Internet, from Amnesty International, and the Human Rights Commission on NZ welfare reforms? I think such bodies deserve to be taken seriously, even by those who are unhappy with them..
14. Pete George 14

    9 May 2012 at 4:49 pm

    Despite all the urgent scandalising – the “leaked” (or stolen) documents are over a year old – March 2011.

    I’ve got some questions for David Shearer.

    Is it ethical for a Labour run website to store and make available documents that are obviously confidential and belonging to another party? And are reported as possibly stolen?
    • ghostwhowalksnz 14.1

      9 May 2012 at 5:01 pm

      They always say they are stolen….its funny they dont go to the police at the time , only when they become public.
      Its Lusk Campaign School 101- Blowing smoke ( to cover up )
      • Pete George 14.1.1

        9 May 2012 at 5:03 pm

        Poor attempt – at the very least they knew they weren’t documents they should have in their possession. Not a good look for a supposedly senior MP – or do you think that sort of thing is fine?
        • McFlock 14.1.1.1

          9 May 2012 at 5:20 pm

          Seems to be a significant “public interest” factor there, petey. 
                
          After all, it’s not like it’s a leak of WINZ recipients’ personal information. the people have a right to know if their ruling party is fracturing badly beneath the surface.
      • tc 14.1.2

        9 May 2012 at 5:04 pm

        Doesn’t stop Petey from running his masters spin lines out though like the good troll he is.
      • McFlock 14.1.3

        9 May 2012 at 5:07 pm

        Frankly, I’m not sure which is worse – an organisation that is so dysfunctional that authorised people are breaching confidence to score minor political points; or that an organisation that has not even basic protocols for securing confidential information in place is running the country  (e.g. ministerial emails being forwarded to private webmail accounts)
    • mickysavage 14.2

      9 May 2012 at 5:05 pm

      Um the documents are dated March 2012.

      Farrar is running the line they are “stolen” but has provided no proof.  He says that one board member claimed his were stolen and his name were on them but there is no proof of either happening.

      Besides the copy that has been photocopied were obviously sitting in a ring binder and had holes punched in them.  More likely someone’s office copy was recopied.

      Crosby Textor would be proud of your efforts today Petey. 
      • Pete George 14.2.1

        9 May 2012 at 5:08 pm

        TV3 was running the line they could be stolen. I hope you know a bit about law.

        I see the heading has 2012, but all the footers are 2011, confusing.

        It’s not a good look for Labour to be directly involved in this sort of thing?
        • mickysavage 14.2.1.1

          9 May 2012 at 5:15 pm

          So you assumed you were right and used this as a weapon without checking.

          If you had given it the slightest thought you would realise it must be from 2012.  It refers to the death of Barry Leay which occurred in October 2011 and also refers to the MMP review which is happening now.

          And then you cite a source which says the papers could be stolen and without thinking of it at all use this as support for a proposition that the minutes are stolen.

          I am all for free speech and the contest of ideas.  But Petey your comments are so full of spin that it is really hard to take you seriously.
          • Colonial Viper 14.2.1.1.1

            9 May 2012 at 6:39 pm

            I always have to remind myself that PG is not an algorithmic troll bot, he’s apparently a flesh and blood human being.
          • QoT 14.2.1.1.2

            9 May 2012 at 11:01 pm

            It’s a wonderful illustration of how Petey has never had to type his own minutes, too.
          • Pete George 14.2.1.1.3

            10 May 2012 at 6:11 am

            Mallard has claimed the documents were leaked, as have you and lprent and Eddie.

            But Mallard also claims not to know where they came from, so how could he know it was a leak?

            Mr Mallard said he received the minutes by fax and they were also posted to him in a brown envelope. He did not know the source.

            http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6891867/Key-suggests-leaked-minutes-were-stolen

            So he doesn’t know if he has retained possession of stolen property or not, and then stored and distributed them via the Labour MP website.

            Not a good look for a senior MP who accuses others of ethical deficiencies.
            • mickysavage 14.2.1.1.3.1

              10 May 2012 at 6:26 am

              Any proof Mallard stole his fax paper or that the photocopy paper was stolen?  If not please go away and stop being a repeater.
              • Pete George …

                10 May 2012 at 6:44 am

                As a lawyer, if you received documents by fax that were clearly confidential and obviously not intended for your use, could you ethically keep them? Would you store them on your company website and make them available for others to view. Would you distribute them?

                There’s some simple questions that should be simple for you to answer.
                • mickysavage …

                  10 May 2012 at 6:51 am

                  So Petey one minute the documents are stolen and Mallard has received them, now it is “unethical” to keep them.

                  Do you think it is unethical to accuse someone of having committed a crime when you agree they have not?
                  • Pete George …

                    10 May 2012 at 7:08 am

                    a) I haven’t accused someone of having committed a crime
                    b) I haven’t agreed they have not committed a crime

                    You have avoided answering the questions.
                    • mickysavage …

                      10 May 2012 at 7:16 am

                      I haven’t accused someone of having committed a crime

                      You have done everything but.  For instance you have said:

                      Is it ethical for a Labour run website to store and make available documents that are obviously confidential and belonging to another party? And are reported as possibly stolen?

                      TV3 was running the line they could be stolen.
                      
                      So he doesn’t know if he has retained possession of stolen property or not

                      You should learn Petey that being a repeated is not a defence in a defamation suit.

                      And I look forward to your answering my question “Do you think it is unethical to accuse someone of having committed a crime when you agree they have not?”
                    • Pete George …

                      10 May 2012 at 7:23 am

                      You must have missed seeing my last comment. I answered you:

                      a) I haven’t accused someone of having committed a crime
                      b) I haven’t agreed they have not committed a crime

                      You have avoided answering the questions. Twice now.
                    • Pascal's bookie …

                      10 May 2012 at 7:38 am

                      Pete: Did you, or did you not, say this:

                      “Shearer stands silently by while Labour website is used to distribute illegally obtained documents.”?

                      That’s a statement (not a question) saying that the documents were illegally obtained.
                    • lprent []

                      10 May 2012 at 8:25 am

                      Yeah, you have to love that assertion that the documents were illegally obtained. Since physical security is the primary way of keeping documents secure, it is far more likely that the were leaked by someone than they were physically stolen.

                      If they were stolen, then presumably there is a complaint about a breakin to the police? Nope? Probably leaked by someone with legitimate physical access. That puts it into the realm of a whistleblower and out of the realm of a crime.

                      Pete is just trying to make up his own laws again. The best that National could do is argue that they own the copyright. But that runs into issues of public interest.

                      Lusk and Slater appear to be quite divisive to National. We have been getting quite a lot of material from inside National about them arriving here. I would guess that it is in response to their negative campaigning against members of National.
                    • felix …

                      10 May 2012 at 7:47 am

                      lol Pete. Have to be careful with language and punctuation, some people think it’s used to convey meaning.

                      the “leaked” (or stolen) documents

                      In this instance the “quotes” could be sarcastically saying “not really leaked”, and the parentheses could be whispering (but we all know they were actually stolen).

                      Or maybe you didn’t intend sarcastic quotes. A more charitable – and literal – reading might be that the quotes are actual quotes. In this instance the quotes would be saying “leaked is a word that has been used to describe the documents and I’m making a point of not using that word to describe them myself” while the parentheses offer the alternative possibility (stolen).

                      As no other alternative possibilities are given, it’s reasonable to infer that you think it’s one or the other – they were either leaked or stolen – but you definitely don’t want to say they were leaked (hence the quotes).

                      There may be other ways to interpret your comment but those are the two obvious ones, sarcastic or literal.

                      In either version it’s difficult to see how you’re not claiming the documents were stolen, but maybe you do have another interpretation. I guess we’ll see.
        • MikeG 14.2.1.2

          9 May 2012 at 7:49 pm

          It’s interesting how that according the the right, anything from the National Party that gets into the wrong hands is “stolen”, but anything of a similar nature that comes from Labour is “leaked”.
          • Pascal's bookie 14.2.1.2.1

            9 May 2012 at 8:25 pm

            Personally, If I was going to make a big deal about something being stolen, I’d go to the police.

            but I’ve always been a bit odd.
            • Colonial Viper 14.2.1.2.1.1

              9 May 2012 at 11:21 pm

              If it was 2 weeks before an election, ShonKey would have organised the police raid personally.
      • ghostwhowalksnz 14.2.2

        9 May 2012 at 5:21 pm

        Poor old Pete , dying in a ditch to defend some National party documents. Who would have guessed, since UF wins no matter what the voters choose
        • Pascal's bookie 14.2.2.1

          9 May 2012 at 8:21 pm

          He’s frothing away over at kiwiblog that the reaction here proves, something:

          When the usual suspects swarm on a post you know they are trying to cloud out something sensitive.

          Then asserts that there has been a crime commited, and that Shearer should do, something:

          Shearer stands silently by while Labour website is used to distribute illegally obtained documents.

          And then asks if the thing Shearer should do something about, is a crime:

          Can any lawyers say what the legal situation is on distributing documents known to be confidential and obviously not intended to be seen by the recipient?

          And then fades away with a bizzare claim about, something:

          “Public interest” has been claimed, but an MP on party blog is hardly an unbiased media.

          He’s pretty weird. I don’t know why people still encourage his, whatever it is.
15. Te Reo Putake 15

    9 May 2012 at 9:00 pm

    I think I’ve just spotted the quote of the day! One minute in, a weary man contemplates the future. It’s almost Beckett like in its bleakness.
16. bomber 16

    10 May 2012 at 3:23 pm

    The Lusk & Slator conspiracy: The God & Guns Republicanization of the National Party – http://tumeke.blogspot.co.nz/2012/05/lusk-slator-conspiracy-god-guns.html

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS