No remorse from English

14 comments on “No remorse from English ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Kevin Welsh 1

   29 September 2009 at 9:29 am

   From the Herald:

   “I stand by the view my home in Dipton is my home. I live in the house I was brought up in with 11 siblings. It is on English Rd. We’ve been there for 120 years and it is not up to anyone else to decide whether that’s home or not home.”

   —

   As a someone who was also raised in Southland, I can understand what he is saying. I have lived in the North Island almost half my life now, but will always consider Southland ‘my home’.

   My spiritual home that is.

   It is where the majority of my family still reside, and when I return for holidays I feel like I am ‘at home’.

   But I live in Hawke’s Bay. It is my physical home and where I have chosen to live. It is where almost all my friends are and where I work and play. To still say that Southland is my home, no matter how closely I am tied to it, is just plain wrong.
   • Pat 1.1

     29 September 2009 at 9:33 am

     Therefore Phil Heatley’s home must now be Wellington? Therefore he should pay back his housing allowance?
     • Ianmac 1.1.1

       29 September 2009 at 9:38 am

       Bin Laden’s (sp) home is not Afghanistan or Pakistan but Saudi Arabia. Mail should be so addressed.
       • Tigger 1.1.1.1

         29 September 2009 at 10:00 am

         This is just more of the ‘aw shucks small town boy’ role/lie that English has coloured his entire career with it.

         “and it is not up to anyone else to decide whether that’s home or not home.” Actually, it is. You signed a form declaring it your home at the bequest of Parliament. You chose to be part of the system. Now let the system decide.

         Oh sorry Bill, I forgot – the system failed you!
         • Pat 1.1.1.1.1

           29 September 2009 at 10:07 am

           So if Heatley says his home is in Whangarei, is he lying? If not, then what about next year, or the year after that, and so on. At some point, his home must cease becoming Whangarei and become Wellington.

           This is the crux of the issue, surely. The longer you are in parliament, the greyer the area becomes, and the less robust are your claims that your home is not in Wellington.

           The only fool-proof system is to not move your family to Wellington.
           • felix 1.1.1.1.1.1

             29 September 2009 at 10:37 am

             I don’t know anything about Heatley’s circumstances but if he’s claiming allowances he should be subject to the same scrutiny as Bill, certainly.

             The longer you are in parliament, the greyer the area becomes…

             I’d say it starts out clearly one thing, then becomes greyer and greyer, and then becomes more and more clearly the other.
           • Pascal's bookie 1.1.1.1.1.2

             29 September 2009 at 10:50 am

             “The only fool-proof system is to not move your family to Wellington.”

             Or not stick your hand out for allowances unless they are clearly intended for your circumstances.
   • felix 1.2

     29 September 2009 at 9:35 am

     We’ve been there for 120 years…

     No wonder he’s looking a bit fagged lately.
2. Deemac 2

   29 September 2009 at 9:36 am

   I still do not understand how the Endeavour Trust can rent Bill a house at below market rate when the law requires trusts to maximise benefit to beneficiaries. Benefitting a third party is illegal!
   • Pat 2.1

     29 September 2009 at 9:53 am

     The beneficiaries of the trust are the children. One can argue that whilst the children are still under the care and protection of their parents, then anything that benefits the parents (such as lower housing costs) also benefits the children (by the parents having more money to look after the children).

     .
     • felix 2.1.1

       29 September 2009 at 10:30 am

       One could argue that, yes.

       And I’d love to see Bling argue it in the “court of public opinion”. Somehow I don’t think we’ll be seeing that though…
3. aj 3

   29 September 2009 at 10:13 am

   “and it is not up to anyone else to decide whether that’s home or not home”

   It is mate when the taxpayer is involved.
4. Craig Glen Eden 4

   29 September 2009 at 12:29 pm

   Exactly AJ we have news for Bill and its all bad!
5. Ron 5

   29 September 2009 at 1:53 pm

   What he says now about where his home is is almost irrelevant.
   He OBVIOUSLY knew that he could be challenged on this and THAT is why he established the trust and started working the system.
   The fact that he is working the system isn’t really such an issue – everybody does it (before you start – I completely agree that on his income and in his position and with his current stance on the incomes of public srvants etc his actions are immoral) but the point is he has now been lying about it.
   He’s signed different documents with different residences, he says he has no involvement in the Trust but now HE has paid back the money that was paid to the TRUST, and he’s fibbed about the timing of it all and his relationship to the whole thing.
   That’s why he has to go.

   captcha – nasty

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS