- Date published:
10:09 am, October 30th, 2008 - 152 comments
Categories: john key, labour, Media - Tags: h-fee
It turns out the Herald’s story about John Key’s H-fee involvement is a bust. Aside from Key not being straight with the dates he worked at Elders there isn’t anything firm to tie him to the actual fraud.
That’s not the story I expected given the Herald had decided to lead with this story on their website yesterday afternoon and hinted at a ‘smoking gun’. The reason it wasn’t the story I expected is because about a month ago we had material anonymously emailed to us that gave the background to the H-fee and included a series of posts outlining the issue. We ran the first of these posts but after trawling through the story and checking as much as we could we decided there simply wasn’t enough substance to run with. It now looks like we weren’t the only ones who were receiving this information.
There are still questions to be answered about this story, such as why did John get his dates wrong with the inoculation he took to the Herald in 2007 and why was the Herald promising audio of the 2007 interview yesterday and treating the story like a scoop when it knew there was no hard evidence?
But I expect these questions will be lost in the mishandling of the issue. My advice to Labour? Make sure you’ve got your ducks lined up before you go to the media, and when National is releasing stuff like their appalling prison policy don’t waste your time on blind alley stories like this one.
baaaawhaaaa – the fizzer – just the headline Clark wanted the week before the election – Labour have been made to look the fool – and it certainly is a well deserved description.
The real questions that need to be asked is how much did the trip of Mike Williams and the Labour Party but taxpayer funded researchers to Australia cost. Who paid (The taxpayer I suspect) and when will the cost be refunded back to the tax-payer.
I have a feeling that the electorate will react badly to labour’s constant smear compaign and in 9 days Labour will be punished in the poll that counts.
The double standard, and that’s all I need to say.
I think the answer why Labour did it when they did is quite simple. They were desperately trying to distract from the revelations about what Peters really knew, and how he actually advocated on behalf of Owen Glenn for the honorary consulship; and what Helen Clark knew and suspected about the matter, and whether she really did believe Winston did not receive a donation from Glenn, despite saying she took him at his word.
SP, you have surprised me this morning. I did not expect you to be this candid. You, SP, bought into this hysteria. I would go as far as to say that the suggestions you made, and the suggestions many other commenters made alleging corruption on John Key’s part, were deeply defamatory. You might want to consider apologising to Key. I really do think it was reckless on your part to buy into such a smear without asking for evidence.
The smoking gun has shot Labour’s campaign to pieces, quite frankly. It was desperate stuff, and will no doubt dominate the news for the next several days at least. It is my belief that Labour had counted on the existence of this neutron bomb since the beginning. It does not, and has never existed. Helen Clark will be defending for several days what she knew and when she knew, of Labour’s dirty tricks campaign against Key.
The media were all led down the garden path by Labour and the Research Unit. They were promised something really explosive. It didn’t happen.
The media, for their part, have shown the big difference between proper media and blogging. They don’t rush into print with defamatory allegations unless there’s real evidence. You might want to think about being a bit more careful in the future too, SP.
SP, is it possible that the left were purposely led up the garden path over this? Or rather, once on that path it was enhanced by thine enemies?
It is a similar possibility to Owen Glenn and Winston Peters. Glenn and ‘others’ stacked up a nice long line of traps over several years with this final general aim in mind.
Gotta love conspiracies – so much fun and impossible to answer.
What a bunch of bloody hypocrits you lot are.
This site should be brought down for defaming Mr Key, by implying that he knowingly provided false information to the SFO and did other fraudulent acts.
That was very very wrong. And it is typical of the individuals on this site to rush to these sort of judgments without actually looking at all the evidence at hand. That was one of the most ignorant posts you have ever written yesterday Clinton, by ignroing the well known fact that the first H-Fee was in Australia. Even Farrar got it right. And that says alot.
Key can win the election today if he deals with this whole issue right. Alot of voters will be put off by the fact that instead of the Labour party dealing with policy matters and the credit crunch, they were off trolling through Key’s past.
[lprent: defaming me is capital offense.]
I dont get the bit where two people at Elders , who had different names, ended up with the same signature ?
And one of those people is John Key.
And funny how the SFO clears Key so no blame on him, but when it clears Peters there are allways more questions.
The standard’s credulity on this puts you and Labour alongside whaleoil and the infamous west coast rape emails that you mocked so strongly.
The standard’s credulity on this puts you and Labour alongside slater and the infamous west coast emails that you mocked so strongly.
capcha did slightly (almost says it all…)
IrishBill: we looked at the story and dropped it because we didn’t think there was enough evidence. The Herald was headlining it yesterday so we assumed there was new evidence. In fact Tane even finished his post with skepticism about the story stacking up. If that’s your bar for credulous then I’m assuming your standard is omniscience.
Well done, ghostwhowalks. The Standardistas have abandoned this. Mike Williams has abandoned it. Hell, Helen Clark is pretending she was never involved.
But, by all means, you march on regardless.
Well there’s the issue of Winston being a complete arse GWW.
Does anyone know for sure who gave this to The Herald?
Anita, my guess is Ev. We’ll know if the informant overused “LOL”.
[lprent: We don’t intend to – besides I have no idea myself. That is how the site is designed.]
it appears that the SFO never actually investigated Key. It interviewed him as a potential witness but found his knowledge so tangential that he was not called. It’s like saying you were a suspect in a bank robbery because you saw someone running away from a building.
My advice to Labour? Make sure you’ve got your ducks lined up before you go to the media
My advice to The Standard – don’t believe the Labour research unit when Mike WIlliams calls the shots..
Check the email Steve,
I send you a pressy that will make up for the crap journalism we witnessed today.
I agree. For God’s sake Labour, drop this issue like the proverbial combustible spud.
It’s also time to realise that there’s only so far that you push the “slippery John” line. The fact is that 80% of the time John Key comes across as Honest John and the more the public is acquainted with him, the more this becomes apparent. The “rabbit eyes” in the Transrail and Lord Ashcroft incidents are newsworthy only because they are the exception, not the norm. Fact is, he is a crap liar and (I suspect) only gets into these scrapes because he relies on dodgy advice which goes against his best instincts.
The thing is, if JK truly was in charge, National would be unstoppable, as he does offer a different face and approach from the past. The fact that National’s support appears to be slipping, I believe, is due to the weight of the dead wood that refuses to let go its hold on the party. And therein lies the real “key” to attacking National – that we simply cannot be confident that John Key is the organ grinder.
So, in summary, rather than trying too hard to rhyme “John Key” with “Shonky”, why not try “Monkey” instead.
That’s exactly right HS. I gave written evidence in a murder trial several years ago, after I had signed pay cheques for the victim, which happened to have been cashed by the accused the week before the victim went missing. The accused was convicted, and I was never a suspect.
so please refresh my memory.
the nats released this story so it would take the heat of their prisons policy
can they be arrested for this?
no randal, but people can be arrested for perjury… go winnie?
Randal, did you write that on the plane back from Melbourne?
Underlying all this is still a residual doubt in the minds of many that John can be hazy about detail. He does dress up his replies with a great deal of rhetoric which obscure and lead to mis-understandings. Whoever a Prime Minister is you would expect unequivocal clarity of expression and then there would be no need to examine what he really meant.
I really think that the issue is a Herald story. Nothing much on Radio or TV from Labour. (A great deal from John Key which his advisers should have told him to avoid?) After all there is a great deal of “digging” on Peters which has to be paid for by some-one apart from Farrar and co. Unique to Labour? Doubt it.
oooops….look like the nats have got their underpants pulled up tight on this one!
Pixie said:”The fact is that 80% of the time John Key comes across as Honest John and the more the public is acquainted with him, the more this becomes apparent.”
Thats what I think Pixie. 80% looking like Honest John is not a good look for a PM???
Roflcopter: Randal couldn’t write that on the plane on the way back because they made him come inside and sit in a seat!
Let me get this straight: yesterday this was going to be a story about John Key’s personal involvement in a notorious international fraud. And today, it is a story about John Key’s clarity of expression.
Well, I s’pose you’ve got to run with what you’ve got.
And I am willing to bet anyone a pork and fennell sausage roll that Ev’s “story” never makes it to the Standard. Steve is not stupid.
“…bet anyone a pork and fennell sausage roll that…
No. I had one, and it was not pleasant.
“You might want to consider apologising to Key.”
And ‘deeply defamatory’? Mmm, saying the Herald has a story, apparently, man, that’s a big call. Especially when the Herald says…ah…it has a story.
I can understand where Labour was coming from. Last time it was emails about the Bretheren, so it makes sense that they’d look for something again this time. They just didn’t get it quite right.
Billy, you mean Ev thinks Key was behind the collapse of building seven?
The smoking gun has shot Labour’s campaign to pieces, quite frankly.
Ahh no. The campaign has always been about the policies that matter to people, and the credibility to deliver on them. Fair tax cuts, the future of KiwiSaver and KiwiBank – that sort of thing. This sort of side show amuses us political tragics, but on the ground the real campaign goes on as it always has.
Sarah up to her usual tricks: “This site should be brought down for defaming Mr Key”
Should Whaleoil be brought down for the constant derogatory remarks about Clarks appearance?
What sort of free speech campaign are you running Sarah?
captcha: Juror condemn oooohh spooky.
No it hasn’t r0b. Labour has spent all year focusing on attacking John Key and smearing him. Labour has been obsessed with him the whole time. The trust theme, the John vs John ads, the obsession with which side John Key supported during the Springbok Tour when he was 19, the depiction of Key as “slippery”, almost all the commentary from the Labour Party has been about John Key, and how to demonise him. The same can be said of the reporting here at the Standard. For weeks Labour has been promising a neutron bomb on John Key. Didn’t happen. Didn’t exist.
Nice spin though.
Exactly r0b, the campaign has always been about the policies that matter to people. So why exactly was Mike Williams and the Labour strategy team in Melbourne focusing on Key’s past instead of dealing with policy matters like they should be? You can’t have it both ways. National has been focusing on policy matters the entire campaign instead of deliving into these desperate smear campaigns.
Btw, is National’s unemployment grant policy out today?
Sarah. Mike Williams doesn’t do policy, he’s the party president – they are responsible for things like organising and fundraising.
Chris G: The site accused John Key of having committted perjury when he did not. If you don’t understand how that might be considered as defamation then that’s your problem.
[lprent: You lied again. That is why you are banned]
Criticising Helen’s appearance is stupid and immature, but is nothing in comparison to what the standard did yesterday. Far as I know, it’s not illegal.
Yes, funny that. John Key and National are all over journalists and news providers if anything detrimental threatens to come out and they even contacted this blog over a quote which was taken out of context but here we are calling John key a lying banking scumbag and not a peep. Makes you wonder eh?
Did you know that Proctor & Gamble lost US $ 157 million dollars in a the year 1993 when the entered into the Currency Derivatives trade with Bankers Trust and did you know that every telephone conversation was recorded and that it was clear that the banksters and currency traders
were actively and knowingly ripping and off their customers. Hell, they even had a name for it. ROF (Rip of Factor) the Bank lost all it’s customers and collapsed due to that scandal. And P&G was by no means the only one to loose their money.
What you reckon the chances are of JK staying squeaky clean in what was deemed (by the judge) a pervasive culture of corruption.
He only left the bank when it collapsed or in his own words “when it all went to shit”.(NZH unauthorised biography 19 July 2008) in 1995 so it wasn’t like he left when it was glaringly obvious that the bank was up to it’s fingers in someone else’s cooky jar.
And Billy they would never want me as an informer I could have given them much better info. It was very clear JK could not have been involved in the h-fee scandal if they had just googled Andrew Krieger and Banking Trust.
This by the way is a challenge to John Key and his team to show us the records that will prove that he left the Elders bank in somewhere between June 1988 and August 1988 and to explain to us how he could have worked with Andrew Krieger for Bankers Trust when Andrew Krieger left the Bankers Trust in February 1988 and trading altogether in June 1988 while he still had to do three months of gardening (grace period) to go.
Clinton, I heard reports stating that he took along with him members of the research department. Surely they could have focused on better things (like policy)than looking into Key’s past?
And how does digging up dirt on his opponent fit into Mike’s job description of “organising and fundraising”?
Sorry r0b, but SP – whose line of attack down to words has mimicked Labour’s started off many months ago on the “where’s you policy” line at a time when no one expected National to release them.
Ever since then, the line of attack has been personalised and it would seem to be that Labour’s long-term strategy has been to discredit Key. It’s been a negative strategy and it appears to have failed.
Given that Labour has made this about trust, it is totally ironic it has backfired so much. Indeed, the smoking gun is now with labour’s strategists and to a lesser extent with the Standardistas who appeared content to play along with this and are now furiously backtracking.
“Labour has spent all year focusing on attacking John Key and smearing him. Labour has been obsessed with him the whole time. The trust theme, the John vs John ads, the obsession with which side John Key supported during the Springbok Tour when he was 19, the depiction of Key as “slippery’, almost all the commentary from the Labour Party has been about John Key, and how to demonise him. The same can be said of the reporting here at the Standard. For weeks Labour has been promising a neutron bomb on John Key. Didn’t happen. Didn’t exist.”
If you run a presidential style campaign like the Nats are, then you should expect to get attacked like one does in a presidential campaign (eg. in the US the amount of vetting that gets done of each candidate. The Nats ARE running a presidential style campaign, billboards for local candidates contain his face also, hes placarded over all brochures. eg. the family one: about 5 or 6 times.
The nats Dont want to run a campaign focused on their party because people will remember that its the same old pricks who messed up the country in the 90s.
Trav, when you’re in a hole, stop digging.
There’s a quite clear test for evidence. You have to have direct evidence specifically linking a person to an action. You don’t have any specific links. You are throwing dirt and hoping it sticks, just as SP did last night, and just as the Labour Party have been doing for weeks. It is totally irresponsible behaviour. Abusing people by calling them “scumbags” doesn’t help your cause.
Find an audit trail and follow it. This is not an audit trail. You are looking for strands of circumstance in order to lead to your eventual conclusion, that John Key is a crook. That is not a case.
John Key doesn’t owe you an explanation. If you can come up with real evidence that he was involved in criminal or fraudulent activity–the sort of evidence that would hold up in court–then we should expect him to respond. You haven’t done that. You aren’t doing your cause any good.
Lying is lying whether you do it in front of a judge or a country you want to run. It’s bad.
I’m sure that Nat’s bullyboys are watching this site like a hawk so perhaps they are a tad worried about coming out with their guns blazing.
Sorry lost link y’all here it is June 1988
travellerev – this site accused John Key of having committed perjury. It once again does not matter if John Key and his advisors are all over news outlets, as that unless you can provide evidence is not illegal. What the Standard did however was insinuate that he lied to the SFO, a fact that was not true. That is called defamation. Hence why the Standard should apologise to Mr Key. Though i’m not holding my breath.
[lprent: Utter crap. There was one post by a guest that outlined the background to H-Fee and highlighted some inconsistencies in John Key’s timings. There was a couple of posts outlining a NZ Herald story.
However you have just lied about this site. Banned for 2 weeks and read the policy.]
Sorry Steve I don’t think it is credible to say Williams is not involved in policy given the policy role presidents have played in previous Labour governments, and his placement on boards of a number of SOEs, which is effectively to ensure implementation of Labour policy.
No-one wants your pork and fennel sausage rolls.
The only way to bet with them would surely be to have the loser eat one.
Too much in transit today for individual replies to those above, but I have rather more to do with Labour’s campaign on the ground than those of you who are critiquing it! Take a look at the billboards (KiwiBank KiwiSaver KiwiRail). Take a look at the pamphlets appearing in your letter boxes. Issues that matter.
The “two faced John” adds are not random attacks on Key, they are highlighting his duplicity on the issues that matter. Labour would have to be stupid to base a campaign on the random hope of one killer issue, and they aren’t, so they didn’t.
There’s lots of rightie spin here about Labour touting a “neutron bomb” for weeks, but I’d be interested if anyone can find a public Labour reference to such a thing. Labour has been campaigning on the issues, because that’s where elections are won and lost.
“I’m sure that Nat’s bullyboys are watching this site like a hawk so perhaps they are a tad worried about coming out with their guns blazing.”
Or alternatively they’ve got more important things on at the moment and they don’t really care what’s printed on this blog.
Giving clear cross references refuting JK’s official timeline is not grasping at straws.
So far we have only had the story the John Key told as per translated by the journo’s whereas I can refute their drivel with facts. In fact this some of the worst journalism I have seen. An accused person gets to tell his story without any follow up of the journo’s and we are expected to just take his word for it. Get real.
Fact. John Key could not have worked with Andrew Krieger while working for the Bankers Trust in 1988 since Andrew Krieger as verified here and here had left the Bankers trust and trading altogether in June 1988.
So if it’s all the same to you I think it is you who has a problem.
I see a great big misrepresentation of the truth here and I would really like for JK to clarify with his “records” how he could have worked with Andrew Krieger. If he can’t or won’t than I out it to you he’s probably lying. And since he’s been caught lying a great many times I call him a lying scumbag as I don with anyone I catch lying multiple times. Moreover since most of his lies have to do with his banking career and money I call him a lying banking scumbag.
Oh, here is another one of Bankers Trust’s victims
Labour has been campaigning on the issues
No r0b, Labour has been campaigning on its record. The strategy can be summed up as you’ve had it good for nine years, now give us your vote you ungrateful bastards.
Indeed you are right – much of the comments on blogs tend towards the bald generalisation and you are right.
I would go as far to say that Labour would have benefited from focussing on policy and I have repeated said so in response to SP’s attacks on Key over the past months.
Given you have some inside knowledge, it would be interesting to hear your critique on why Labour strategists have chosen this line of attack. I don’t mean the flip flops because any politican can be proven to speak with forked tongue – see KB today.
Apparentely, Trevor Mallard used the H-Fee line last year so it does appear to have been a long term line of attack, contrary to your view.
Regardless, I think this has proved to have been an error of judgement and given Williams involved the error has happened at the highest level. Laboru would have benefited from staying on policy debate but their line of attack was differnet
Eve – don’t get all reasonable on me now – you’ll ruin all my preconceived opinions of you 🙂
Williams did his research in Melbourne at his own expense.
I was surprised that it was the Herald which broke the “story,” and wondered if they would spike it today and they did. Lack of “evidence” or clever media?
This was a tactical move by the Herald (aka publishing arm of the National Party). They generated a possible scandal and then switched the attention to ‘a desperate Labour smear campaign’, probably because the gap in the polls is closing and National needs all the help it can get. Pathetic.
Nice work LRO
The problem for you (and the Standard) is that “Batman” posted a thread on this some weeks ago which has now been cleansed.
Some people in Labour are obviously concerned about how they’ve got this wrong and you can blame Granny all you like but this was a Labour decision and they have no one else to blame but themselves.
Don’t worry, I just couldn’t be bothered. LOL
Yep I reckon.
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/the-road-to-lonsdale-street-part-1 ? what do you mean “has now been cleansed”?
[lprent: What Daveski is referring to is that on the day that the post went up, there was a bit of discussion internally about who’d given access to batman. When that finished, on the same day it was changed to a Guest post and a note was appended. We now have better agreement about how and when people are given post access.]
No r0b, Labour has been campaigning on its record. The strategy can be summed up as you’ve had it good for nine years, now give us your vote you ungrateful bastards.
Ohh please. And National has been campaigning on being Labour Lite – summed up as “you’ve had it good for nine years so we won’t change anything important now give us your vote you dim witted suckers”.
At the campaign launches it was Labour who had concrete plans for dealing with the financial crisis, and National who had nothing to offer. Here’s John Armstrong summing up (excerpts):
Here’s Gordon Campbell:
So I’ll say it once again, Labour is the one planning for the future and offering concrete constructive policy.
Given you have some inside knowledge
I claim no inside knowledge except that of an ordinary campaign volunteer on the ground.
“Laboru” Is this the Romanian Branch, daveski? Just like Liabour is the Italian one? heh
Ianmac – that’s an interesting point, for all the ‘mud-slinging’ done lately – what has Labour actually presented to the media?
As Colin Espiner mentioned today, reading the article last night, all he could see was The Herald making the accusations, not Labour. I guess he is one of the few reasonable enough to make that point.
I see leftrightout. You just know there must be a conspiracy. If it wasn’t John Key it just must have been the Herald. Explain how the Herald managed to involve Mike Williams in their web of deception.
“Thats what I think Pixie. 80% looking like Honest John is not a good look for a PM???”
Ianmac, I think you underestimate the public’s cynicism of politicians generally. Remember the old joke – how do you know when politicians are lying? They open their mouths.
In which case, 80% is a very high score!
During the Leader’s debate, I thought that John Key was at his best when he talked about his background and why he wanted to be PM. Because this was true for him and he was able to speak with some substance.
He was at his Hollow Man worst when he spoke in “slogans” without supporting them with any details. For example, he kept saying, “I am ambitious for NZ” but did not elaborate on what that means for him.
HC on the other hand, did not talk of ambition but spoke of her vision for NZ to turn the whole climate change threat into an economic opportunity by, for example leveraging off its clean, green brand, investing in green technology, R&D etc.
JK’s response was to be a “fast follower”, which somehow lacks congruity with the “ambitious” slogan. Especially when it’s clear that eco-business will shortly be the only game in town (apparently even Coca Cola are currently rebranding themselves so as to convey a more “green” image)
What a shame HC didn’t begin and/or end with something like, “I’m ambitious for NZ too, and here’s where I see our future prosperity…”
PS, please, please, please Helen Clark, at the next Leader’s debate, resist all temptation to go for the cheap shots and rise above the gladiatorial pit. Model the dignified and gracious leader that you are. If JK tries to shout you down, simply stop talking and make him look immature and petty. Don’t shout over him, but do insist on having your turn. Make the moderator work for his money.
The “grace and grit” strategy may mean that John Key gets to sound off more this time. However, you can get the upper hand simply by parroting back every one of his slogans (ambitious for NZ – tick, prosperity – tick, economic growth – tick, safe societies – tick) and then linking each one to Labour’s own policies. In other words, “I’ll see your form and raise you some substance.”
Hey Billy – long time no see! I don’t think it was a Herald set-up but I’ve never ever seen a newspaper headline a story and then do a bait and switch like the Herald did. It was a very weird way to run a story…
With no smoking gun it’s traditional to not write a story. At a pinch I could see them doing a look how desperate labour is story but to build up a story about Key and then deliver one about Labour? Never seen anything like it…
Trav, I ask you this question at the risk of you going off on a wild, abusive tangent. But since BT did not have a forex arm in New Zealand until John Key went there to set it up, what makes you think that John Key would have to have worked in the same company as Andrew Krieger for Krieger to have been a client of Key’s?
I know you are obsessed with this stuff, but you have made one enormous assumption this whole time. If what you say is correct, then Key and Krieger didn’t work in the same company. What is stopping them being involved in trades together, working for different companies?
Oh, and none of your links say that Andrew Krieger left trading altogether in June 1988, despite you saying that it does. Does this mean that you are telling lies? By your own definition, it does. Or maybe you were just mistaken. Is it possible that if you are sometimes mistaken and confused about very minor details, then other people might occasionally be confused and mistaken about very minor details?
And while it’s nice of you to link to one of BT’s “victims”, there isn’t any direct link to John Key in that link, is there? Or are you just committing further guilt by association?
MP – actually, given my moniker I should know more about Romania. Actually, nice touch too – a GSOH during a robust discussion sets the right tone. Cheers
Anita – I’m not trolling but there are issues that need some explanation. As I understand it (from KB), the original post was not by a Guest but a named contributed Batman. The post has since been cleansed.
It could of course be a coincidence that someone called Batman posted the thread on the H-Fee and somone called Batman delivered the docs to the Dom Post (there goes the NZH theory too).
It does cause problems for the Standard given the strident denials of links to Labour. I happily accept those from LP who appears highly opinionated, politically motivated, but will total integrity. He is open about his affiliations and points out that many people post at the Standard and it’s not a machine and have your read the About page 🙂
However, this does leave a smoking gun which I hope LP will clear for us all.
IrishBill: as I have pointed out several times in comments the reason “batman” was used as a user name instead of “guest post” was that one of our crew thought that was appropriate for the series of posts emailed to us. After consulting amongst ourselves we decided that that was not appropriate and Steve changed it to a guest post on the same day it was first published. We also decided not to continue the series because we didn’t think it had enough substance.
[lprent: It was exactly what Irish said. There was a certain amount of ‘dialogue’ going on around the mailgroup about who put up the batman post. I was mainly concerned because the style of the poster was quite different to usual, and I’d prefer guest posts while people figure out how to write for this medium.]
Don’t encourage her…
I wonder what is more morally reprehensible. Lying to a judge to save your own sorry arse of lying to about 1 million people whom you want to vote for you and make you their new PM.
I had two days of dialog with travellerev on another post here on the Standard. Its like fighting jello. Everytime you unequivocally refute one of her allegations or point out the falsity of her “associations by proximity”, she ignores that , rearranges the remaining facts and has another go. You end up in a continuous spiral of FACT!!!!! “Um no, not really, here’s why.” She comes back……. FACT!!!!!! “Um no, not really here’s why”. We started talking about why what a lot of what she believes about Key, BT, Merrills, sub-prime etc is incorrect (I quoted third party facts, plus understanding the cuture through 18 years of working in investment banks – never at the same firm as Key, or even aware of his existence until I returned to NZ 5 years ago). And I end up getting lectured about WTC7…….
For the raving mad conspiracy theorists amongst u, I’ll repost this from wikipedia which is the basic checklist anyone should start with when discovering what clearly looks like a massive conspiracy of shadowy forces (iluminati, freemasons, jewish bankers, CIA etc) looking to control global wealth for themselves (ie like John Key):
– Occam’s razor – does the alternative story explain more of the evidence than the mainstream story, or is it just a more complicated and therefore less useful explanation of the same evidence?
– Logic – Do the proofs offered follow the rules of logic, or do they employ Fallacies of logic?
– Methodology – are the proofs offered for the argument well constructed, i.e., using sound methodology? Is there any clear standard to determine what evidence would prove or disprove the theory?
– Whistleblowers – how many people â€” and what kind â€” have to be loyal conspirators?
– Falsifiability – Is it possible to demonstrate that specific claims of the theory are false, or are they “unfalsifiable”?
travellerev seems to assume that the lack of evidence of a conspiracy is clear evidence that a succesful conspiracy exists. Pretty hard to argue with the logic really…….
Irishbill and SP have said they did not continue Batman’s posts because they thought they had no substance.
Another reason could be that Labour strategists wanted to release the story later in the campaign to have more impact, and The Standard did not want to defuse the timer on the neutron bomb.
Only problem was that the signiture on the cheque turned out to not be that of John Key, as previously thought.
“This was a tactical move by the Herald (aka publishing arm of the National Party). They generated a possible scandal and then switched the attention to â€˜a desperate Labour smear campaign’, probably because the gap in the polls is closing and National needs all the help it can get. Pathetic.”
your a sick, deluded, little creature.
a.) your conspiracy theory is laughable. your good friend batman leaked a story to the herald promising more to come. Hodgson then backs this up. The herald then runs the story… and it is a story that could of gone two ways and was always going to be of interest to the public: a.)key implicated ,or, b)secret squirrel labour games. pity for you it was the later.
b.)national is desperate? they are not the ones sending their party president overseas looking thru thousands of documents for signatures like a sleazy little P.I. sifting through rubbish bins. they are not the ones who have leaked teasers for a ‘big skeleton in keys closet’ to the media and bloggers.
face it; the mud raking and personal attacks aren’t working. The campaign strategy is turning off swing voters
this ones about trust indeed.
R0b – why then, if labour is campaigning on policy, am i getting letters in the mail from labour attacking key?
I’m picking Dunedin is the big clue to finding out who “Batman” is. But don’t be assuming “he’s” male.
NeillR – are you implying that the MP formerly known as ‘the ball man’ could have put down his racket and picked up a bat these days ?
I find that hard to swallow.
“wonder what is more morally reprehensible. Lying to a judge to save your own sorry arse of lying to about 1 million people whom you want to vote for you and make you their new PM.”
i dont know, why dont you ask helen, re:
*prime ministerial motorcade to rugby game
*peters donations saga – lies x5
*i have nothing to do with mike williams going to aus
*”we never had any intention of telling you how much water you could have in the shower” – after labour mp is on closeup defending it
*”absolutely not, i think your trying to defy human nature” – then votes for anti smacking bill
*pledge card cluster fuck
*”tax cuts are a path to inequality” – then cuts taxes….
I checked my links and it appears I linked to the same article twice. So here is an additional link
This is from the NYTimes 1988 (online archive)
The obscure currency they were talking about was the NZ dollar. And he was the only one dealing in it in 1997 (read the rest of the article it appears AK did some creative bookkeeping)
This is from another archived article from 1990 see above link:
From the same article:
And it continues
And this is from a third article from the same archives in which he announces that he will start his own trading company on 7th of June 1988 and will leave Soros to do so.
Judging by the interview with AK he changed his mind and wanted a change of lifestyle and he started his own advisory business.
If John Key left Elders on June 29 1988 he missed Andrew Krieger’s last trading days with Soros by 23 days and that was not even counting his three month grace period.
If he worked with Krieger and he was his sole account manager and dealing in huge sums he must have done so in 1987.
This from the Sunday Star Times
Captcha sive taxpayers. A vision of things to come under national?
we haven’t seen much hooton lately
whats he go to say about it
Funny you should say that I thought the same about you. I hope that the quotes and the links for Tim meet your standards.
Seems like a fairly conclusive timeline to me but than you behaved a bit like jello too. LOL.
Bill Ralston wrote in his Stuff blog on 12 September:
“There is one other factor. The government have long been rumoured to have a couple of “neutron bomb’ type scandals ready to throw back at the Nats and it wants these to be carefully timed to attract most media attention during the election campaign itself when voters are more likely to be swayed and the Peters scandal is receding in peoples’ memories.”
You know you have lost when your only remaining champions are Ev and randal.
Bill English applying the boot.
And Vlad the Impaler the Billy please don’t forget Vlad
That is not case closed. That is a whole lot of unrelated information about Andrew Krieger, which have nothing to do with John Key, backed up by a whole lot of factual errors on your part.
The NZ dollar is not obscure. It is the tenth most traded currency in the world.
Hang on. You said Krieger stopped trading in 1988. Or is it possible you got your date wrong? Goodness me, does that make you a liar? Or can it be that you made a very minor mistake, as John Key clearly did when he said he’d left Elders in 1987, three months before the NZ H Fee transaction took place, when clearly he meant he left in 1988, three months before the Elders NZ H Fee transaction?
And Krieger wasn’t the only one dealing in the NZ dollar in 1987. That is just a ridiculous statement which you’ve got no evidence to back up.
Trav, this is not a case. This is a pointless conspiracy theory because you want to smear John Key. Much of it is defamatory. I don’t know, if in your country, it is acceptable to go around telling malicious lies about people, but it certainly isn’t acceptable here.
Do I know Vlad?
you wrote (the judge said) “a pervasive culture of corruption”
was this about BT or P&G, or both.??? which judge, what court.?
Wellingtonian said: “i dont know, why dont you ask helen, re:
*prime ministerial motorcade to rugby game
*peters donations saga – lies x5
*i have……..etc etc”
You have just given a list of what John Key would call “digging dirt” Funny that. Of course your list is important in the National Interest to investigate.
Now where on you list would you put “checking the integrity of an MP by checking discrepancies in his published story “?
You are not being a bit hypocritical are you John’s mate.
lanmac: ‘helengrad supporter #1’ tried to deliver a cunning jibe that someone who wants to lead the country shouldnt lie – i merely cited examples of where clark was shown to lie.
examples uncovered by the press, not by the national party president on a fact finding mission to foriegn pastures.
– the impaler
Started posting yesterday screeching about Key and doing much “lol”ing
Hi Zin as far as I’m concerned they are both as bad as each other. LOL.
It is not unrelated it sets a timeline. AK left bankers trust in February 1988, went to work for Soros from March in some and in the latest link I gave its from April to June after which according to himself in 1990 he which he turned his back on currency trading and started a consultancy. According to Eugene Bingham John Key did not leave Elders until 29 June 1988 after which he had to his contractual three month grace period. Allowing him to start work for Bankers trust somewhere in late September making working with AK and the many millions he traded for him an impossibility.
Trust me Tim in 1987 the NZ dollar was an obscure currency. Now it’s an obscure overvalued currency and something the big boys like to speculate with. Give it a couple of weeks and you’ll see what I mean.
it’s a good thing most people here check for themselves.
AK stopped trading in June 1988.
AK being the only one dealing from Bankers trust in the NZ currency was a quote from a bloody article from 1988 the NYT.
JK being solely responsible for AK’s account was a quote form the bloody NZH.
You know what I’m tired of this I’m going to do some conspicuous consuming and leave you to it for awhile. maybe you can keep yourself entertained with with the inanities of HS, Billy and the other trolls
There we go back to the normal old Eve we know and love. LOL
Though of course tis true is it not that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence..heh (ex: Carl Sagan i think)
vto and all other winston wobblers..
heavens above when will you get the fact of 2 July 2008.. in the matter of why JK must – and so very promptly and pointedly – go after your idol or obsession (whichever is the greater) – in the Parliamentary Privileges Committee. His offsider hider having by now stuffed two time-consuming and unwanted expense of false allegations into the SFO and EC..!
of course, there’s nothing like your own party chairman on the PC, and an avowed belief in an entrusted powerful and wealthy witness.. whose rewards shall be earthly.. to say the least. All distractable.. even entertaining.. though whatever nothing like the Parliamentary Q&A written words:
Couldn’t possibly work with someone like that post-Election. No way, and especially if the “mates” of ’93 are the mates of 2008-10.. and beyond.
yeah its all geting a bit crummy at the moment
all bleatway rubbish at the moment cause the press is too lazy to go and dig up some decent stories with juice
meanwhile the fish wriggles
Yeah – I’m more of a dog kind of a guy too…
Wellingtonian: You are dreaming if you think that politicians did not lend a hand against those in your list.
It was the Herald who published the Key story yesterday/today not the Labour Party. True Williams did some checking at his own expense but it was Herald story from an anonymous tip-off as with the Dom. The difference is…ummm
I was with you at “PIMP” but “STCIIHO” goes over my head.
I hope I haven’t just made a disgusting pun.
Ianmac If it was at Mike Williams own expense does that make it a donation that should be declared. Were there any other staffes involved and who paid their expenses?
lanmac: not the labour party? haha. just who do you think batman is, and how did he get amongst that info?
and was it not the herald who published the stories i cited above
Rolling on the Floor Laughing My Ass Off Scaring the Cat If I Had One
sayeth the freedictionary – somebody trying outsmart slogans.. 😉
Big ups for Eve.
So what was stopping Krieger dealing with Key in the 1987 run on the NZ$ when Key was working for Elders in Auckland?
Does Key ever say that they were both in BT when they got to know each other?
Has anybody talked to Krieger about when it was that he asked Key for information on the NZ economy?
Key denies that he was involved in the NZ$ run. Where is the evidence?
Why did the Herald beat up this story salaciously last night then dump Labour in it today? Yesterday their ‘follow up’ line was practically an orgasm and today it was all ‘Labour is evil’.
Far better is the Greens asking Key why Nat MPs are telling farmers one thing while he is telling us all another…honestly NZ, vote for Key and you’ll get what you deserve…not what I deserve but what you deserve definitely…
Robin, how is Williams’ research an electoral advertisment? Where is his press release or advertising about it? Oh, wait, nowhere, the Herald ran it. Send them your little bill.
On the contrary
1. Where is the evidence Key was involved in the run on the $NZ
2. So what if he was – floating currencies go up and down depending on who’s buying and selling and regardless you’ll always have someone whining no matter which direction they’re heading in.
Wellingtonian: Batman was not a Labour Party member. But David Farrar is active for National(e-mails on Peters) as is Bill Bias Ralston, the independent media trainer for John Key.
You might also ask how did Wodney get in amongst the dirt on Peters, and how did National get its info to feed to Wodney to ask during Question time?
Williams went to do research in Aussie. So too did the Herald as said on Nat radio at 4:20 today. Herald announces the “bomb” but when it fails passed the blame to Williams. Williams did not go to the press. His research was very recent, Batman was weeks old. Give up??
That says all we need to hear I think. Not that I was wondering.
You, like Key don’t care about the consequences of money trading for profit.
That by my definition is parasitism. And that is why Key is keen to avoid any association with Krieger at that particular time. He and you many not care, but the ‘punters’ do.
Evidence? Eve has done stirling work on this. Key has now confirmed that he was in NZ in 1987 working for Elders at the time of the attack on the dollar and not on ‘gardening leave’ and on the way to meet Krieger at BT. And we know that he advised Krieger on the NZ economy. Key led us to believe his advice came later while at BT.
Eve has shown that Key couldnt have worked with Krieger at BT, so when did he advise him on the NZ economy?
Key should prove that he was not advising him on that particular attack on the NZ$ in 1987.
You’re welcome to your opinion Rave but it’s one of the many I don’t share with you.
If you take your opinion on money trading for profit to it’s logical conclusion then all trading for profit is in your eyes a form of parasitism but I s’pose that would possibly be a good fir with the views of the Communist Workers’ Group of Aotearoa/New Zealand who are committed to building a new communist international to lead workers to the revolutionary overthrow of global capitalism.
In a not to distant past usury was condemned by Christians as sinful. Asking interest was a sin. Making money with money was a sin. Why? Because it extracted money from real wealth and contracted too much power into few hands.
It was the one thing Jesus ever became violent about when he kicked the money changers out of the temple. Go figure I’m not even a Christian but I sure can see what he meant.
In the next couple of months you will find out exactly what that means.
But just to give you an idea: It means that poor people all over the world will loose whatever they managed to scrimp and save while the Money Masters bask in obscene opulence. It means that cities all over the world will starve and that includes the inner cities of Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch and while I think that New Zealand can do pretty well since we have lot’s of land and the ability to grow vast amounts of food for our own population this will not be the case in America or China. It means that the Money Masters can pay mercenaries to protect themselves while their servants starve.
Exchanging goods to maintain yourself and your family and your community with the aid of a currency and to lend each other funds so that the other might prosper too is one thing but what you are going to see in the months to come has nothing to do with maintaining and prospering in you community.
We’ll be lucky to end up like say the Amish, living frugally of the land, very lucky.
But I wager you that in America it’s going to be more like a mad max movie.
Eve and I’ll wager you America is not going to be like a Mad Max movie and nor are 99% of their population are going to be living in abject poverty as you have asserted previously.
Is Eve employed by The Standard to derail Bad News Threads with her doomsday and/or conspiracy theories?
I only hope my taxes aren’t paying her wages.
We’ll see. Tell you what if you ever need a meal because you didn’t see it coming I bet ya I’ll be able to spare you one. How’s that?
And I’ll try not to say, “I told you so.” LOL.
In the mean time: Wall street is dropping again.
I don’t get paid by anyone. My husband and I live on one income and I double it by growing our own veggies, keeping chickens, baking our own bread making our own booze, cheese and whatever you name it I do it.
I don’t know any of the moderators and in fact five months ago the were thinking of banning me. In fact suggesting the Standard would employ someone to help them divert bad new makes you sound like a CT.
Why don’t you give a couple of suckers some loans they can’t pay back before you loose your job too.
You sad cow.
Incontrovertable evidence has been provided that Key’s story about having worked closely with Krieger at either Bankers Trust cannot be true if Key left Elders in June 1988 and only started with BT 3 months later. These dates have been independently verified with linked articles that state Kreiger left BT in Febuary 1988 (in one case to an archived NYTimes article dated 28th Feb 1988).
Yet both Key and Krieger have clearly stated the trading relationship at BT existed.
By itself this is not proof of wrong-doing on Key’s part, but does mean that at least part of the story Key has given about his career MUST be wrong.
The question is, which part? And why ?
Thanks for the offer Eve but if things pack up to the extent you predict I’ll just depart to the farm and live there for a few years in between my other responsibilities.
Re Wall St meh – stock markets go up stock markets go down companies come and go.
Ps Pat may be a bloke – hence that would be “sad bull”
FFS who apart from those people with some kind of bizarre fixation on Key really cares ?
If he had been involved in any wrong doing let alone being the devil incarnate we would know by now as numerous of his political opponents have been sifting the dirt on him for some time just as they do on Helen with no joy.
Despite the crappola that’s spouted about both of them they’re both disturbingly dull on the scandal front.
So you cannot, nor care not to explain this major discrepancy?
Would you employ someone, if you found a major hole like this in his CV?
There is something not right with his timeline, and you know it.
Read my previous comment.
“FFS who apart from those people with some kind of bizarre fixation on Key really cares ”
hence I don’t care.
You do not care that John Key’s CV contains an impossible story. Thats OK .. we now all know exactly what your standard really is.
By your own admission.
Red all we may conclude is that you have some kind of bizarre fixation on Key.
The impossible story is a creation of that bizarre fixation of yours if he said he worked with or without Krieger I’m prepared to take him at his word – it is both ancient history and completely bloody irrelevant to the current election campaign.
Travellerev you are so full of it.
Proctor + Gamble lost money on interest rate derivatives, not currency derivatives as you are trying to insinuate. They bought (knowingly) interest rate instruments that blew up on them . These instruments were sold out of the New York branch of Bankers Trust. You are blatantly lying by saying that they lost money on currency derivatives.
As for Krieger, every FX dealer in New Zealand at every bank would have dealt with him including DFC who were very active in NZD currency options. He acted alone and used the banks to facilitate his own trading strategy. Although he worked at Bankers Trust he was a maverick who worked alone. I know this because I worked at Bankers trust in London at the time and he tried to crucify me in a transaction. Senior management then annulled the trade.
A pseudo-academic indeed with Helen Clark’s capacity for twisting the facts.
Can we please get rid of williams now? Everytime he tries something he fucks it up. At the convention it was just stupid, the owen glenn thing though? Fucking DUMB! This??? Fire him now!! not tomorrow, now because he just lost the election. How many mistakes were they going to tolerate?
Honestly at least national don’t piss their donors off enough to have them take time out of their schedule and fly halfway round the world just to make them look shit. Fuck sakes, where did they find him and why is he still employed?
Helen Clark is on record as saying that this was not a story she was handling at all.
But today we have this!
And she is campaigning on trust? Be honest here lefties, If John Key had behaved in this manner you would have been all over him like a swarm of killer bees, just like you were with the Tranzrail share issue, which should now be seen for the petty politics it was.
As if to underline the fact. toady we have this!
A portent I hear you say? Or is the last vestige of the Labour campaign relying on putting the pressure on Key because he could not recall who paid for lunch 20 years ago.
This is desperate politics from a party bereft of direction, and this time, it shows!
The impossible story is a creation of that bizarre fixation of yours if he said he worked with or without Krieger I’m prepared to take him at his word
It is not a matter of taking the man at his word or not; the simple facts appear to contradict him.
1: Andrew Krieger left BT in Febuary 1988.
2: John Key joined BT in August 1988 at the earliest.
3: They have both independently claimed to have worked together while at BT.
Surely you can spot the problem here.
We have not created this. These items are independently documented in several different places. We have provided authoratative links.
Can you offer any sort of credible explanation for what we are talking about? Because on the face of it there is none.
Here I am watching Labour self-destruct. Thought the leaders debate and the fall-out from that was the seminal moment in the campaign but no, bull in the china shop Williams comes galloping to the rescue to trump that one and the nightmare day ends with that TV shot of Hulun falling flat on her face.
The imagery was priceless and better than any election advert.
And to compound the problem you plonkers can’t even get your story right about who picked up the tab for the trip.
Hulun … Mike did.
Mike … Labour (code for taxpayer) did.
Its called shooting yourselves in the foot and mouth disease.
Me neither. It really is weird, and I guess we’ll never get the story of why they did it without slippping some E into someone’s beer, waiting for a bit and steering the conversation. I can’t be arsed doing that, and it’d be a waste of good drugs so spekulatin will have to suffice.
It appears that ‘batman’ was shopping the story around, that much is clear. As well as The Standard, the Dom got it, the Herald got it, and Mike Williams got it.
The Standard put up the teaser piece and didn’t run anymore.
The MSM sources seemed to be investigating it, as did Williams.
The Herald ran their teaser piece online yesterday, promising more in today’s print edition.
In today’s print edition they do an about face and the story is about Williams investigating the story. The story arc that was promised got abandoned for some reason. If we assume that there was a story written that followed the promised arc, why didn’t they run it? What changed between yesterday arvo and 4AM, and why wasn’t that change in circumstances mentioned in today’s story?
I can’t think of a plausible answer to the italicised question. Anyone?
One possible answer (with only a small amount of tinfoil required) is that there wasn’t a story written that followed the initial story arc. The Herald knew how much the story panned out but didn’t know who else knew.
Publishing the teaser may have been an attempt to get the other people (Williams and media) who were investigating ‘batman’s’ claims to come forward with what they had.
If the Herald was confident they had the story right, and someone else announced something different the Herald would have looked ever so clever when their final story came out. (complete with a recap of the late breaking changes, developing, ‘other media taken in by caped figurine’, ‘politicians in shooting off at the mouthgate’).
Ouch – you lefties got that sinking feeling in your gut?
Are any of youse going to give mike and the research unit a hand to go through 24 kgs of paper work looking for JK’s credit card reciept for that lunch 20 years ago…. 🙂
captcha “pinkola in” -not after todays double face plant
Hey Mike – I know that useless drunk cunt Williams has given y’all something to cling to but mate – you’re still in for some real disappointment come election day…
Mike, can you provide an answer to ReLogix post at 8.10?
Nah? thought not.
Glad you mentioned communism. Its coming back into fashion.
Seems that what we have now is socialism for the rich and private penury for the poor. Need to reverse that.
At least Labour is coming up with some policies that will help tide people over in the coming months and years. That’s a good platform from which to fight the rich socialists from plundering our wages, taxes, and wealth, and natures resources, so that we can socialise them and survive off them ourselves.
If its good enough for them, its good enough for us.
Tax the bastards, shove the RMA up them, nationalise their booty, outlaw the banksters, make them sweat for carbon credits, force them to ride on Kiwirail, and I havent even started.
I recommend an enema followed by a good sleep.
Sod – I agree Williams appears to be an inept buffoon but remember the Nat’s Boag (hopeless) the list goes on and on – you should start listing the useless twat politicians and party presidents from all the political parties at your blog – I suspect by the time were finished we’d be lucky to have more than a couple of dozen who pass muster. Feck I despair of our politicians and political parties at times.
LP et al
I appreciate the opportunity to ask uncomfortable questions and get replies. Frankly, given the blurred lines between the party and party members, this type of issue had to happen some time. Ha ha ha … this indeed is Lynn’s point that the Standard is not the individuals … but we only see the thought of individuals.
I genuinely hope that the Standard can retain some semblance of independence. There is a role in NZ for robust discussion and beyond that fostering an interest in politics and politicking.
It’s a pity that there isn’t a drinking for liberals meeting – it would be fascinating to have a beer or two.
Ok, on to the next issue 🙂
HS – that’s two enema recommendations in as many weeks? I figure you’re either a midwife or a dude with some serious psycho sexual development issues…
And Williams is an outstanding fuck-up. Even amongst the pantheon of fuck-ups that is NZ’s political scene…
Robinsod: in Williams defence he is beyond satire, and beyond caricature. He is creating a whole new genre of his own. It’s like watching Bart before the Simpsons were released. There’s something weird there, but just what the hell is it? I don’t think we have the context to understand Mike Williams. And we probably never will.
The term currency derivatives did not come from me but from the article I linked to.
I’m not a derivatives trader and took their word for it, that’s hardly lying.
Lying is when you tell people you have no conflict of interest while you damn well know that you do like oh, the amount of shares you own in transrail.
Lying is when you tell people in one article you left Elders in early 1987 and in another in 1988 in order to avoid an unsavoury connection. John Key anyone?
I fail to understand the difference between currency and interest derivatives though. They both deal with a derivative based on money and we don’t know what interest and from which currency’s. A couple of swaps and futures down the road and who knows what you’re betting on.
What we do know is that there were rumours in the months before these derivatives were sold was that Alan Greenspan was going to change the rules and it was those changes which caused the losses.
P & G may or may not have known but Bankers Trust surely did and yet it’s bankers sold the derivatives to P & G anyway.
I’m sure Proctor & Gamble’s finance guys are as complicit as the Bankers from Bankers Trust. They would have been too smart not to have been but I did not speak in defence of P & G. The Bankers Trust tapes did show a callous mentality with regards to the truth and they did show the way the Bankers Trust CEO’s encouraged a greedy dishonest mentality in it’s Bankers. I mean the term ROF or Rip of Factor is hardly a testimony to the Bankers Trust Banksters integrity is it?
As one of the articles I link to states:
From which it follows that although for the Bankers Trust Key was the sole trader for Bankers trust, the Bankers Trust would not have been the only bank Krieger traded with.
If Krieger was the market on the Bankers Trust side than yes, he most probably dealt with more banks in NZ. The point I was trying to make is that if John Key was the sole dealer who was responsible for every trade Krieger made with the Bankers Trust he can’t have done so in late August 1988 because at that time Krieger wasn’t trading with anyone anywhere.
John Key is in other words lying. That’s the point I’m trying to make OK?
Judging from this link he was not a very nice person indeed. He apparently bulldozed public parkland because his son “needed” a tennis court.
So hey, in Andrew Krieger’s i.e. John Key’s high flying banking world you just bulldoze several hundred trees from a publicly owned park.
And yes, he was very much a maverick. All super greedy, megalomaniac massively egotistical assholes invariably are and I’m not at all surprised to hear he was happy to try and crucify you.
So what does it tell you about John Key if he can get along spiffingly with such an obvious asshole and is happy to lie about his relationship with him?
There is one big difference though between Andrew Krieger and John Key.
Andrew Krieger, a scholar in Sanskrit before he became a banker was once married to Indian woman. He lived in India and developed a passion.
A real passion, not like Jon Key who professes a passion for NZ but whose actions and lying give to no credence to that professed passion, he fell in love with India and it’s people and with that came compassion and the true need to help that country.
So what did he do? Become a Nationalised Indian and try to become the president so he could lead that Nation to greatness like John Key wants to do?
No, he actually began to spend his money on the poor and the neglected. He organised schooling and jobs for those same people and when the Tsunami hit his organisation provided thousands of thatched roofs and fishing nets and kitchen utensils and supplies within weeks so people could go back to providing for their families as quick as possible.
Catch my drift John? Andrew Krieger became a humanitarian philanthropist while John Key remained greedy and power hungry and is prepared to lie to get to were he wants to go.
By the way Krieger actually apologised for the damage he caused after he was fined a huge sum of money to repay for the damage he caused in the public park.
Captcha: specially friend. Hmmm.
Think Jack Nicholson – “this town needs an enema” I thought wit the Batman fiasco it was appropriate.
Re Williams – I disagree I think it’s just more of the same bunch of political dunderheads we’ve been subjected to on all sides for decades.
Daveski: It is pleasant getting asked questions rather than the usual round of accusations. It means that we can be pleasant rather than irritated.
I’d offer you the same advice, except you’d still be full of it.
What did you think of National’s latest attempt at socialism for the middle class?
“Proctor + Gamble lost money on interest rate derivatives, not currency derivatives as you are trying to insinuate. They bought (knowingly) interest rate instruments that blew up on them ”
Correct: On currency deals we know of the particular BT dealers enabled the PG CFO make money off the peso. In terms of the BT strategy to get a line into this corporate treasury – which only recently at the time had triggered trader interest by establishing itself as a profit center – a relatively simple and trust-making peso trade or two were run. Still, as PG were ultra-conservative and one can reasonably presume its new, albeit ambitious, CFO needed to ask around what the BT guys were talking to him about, nothing happened for a while.
Interesting from the time, however, were suspicions that those currency deals were sweeteners. For suckers, if we are to make rational sense of taped BT evidence. And by this I mean to have us (today) understand the considerable aggression evident back then in dealers’ jargon, attitudes, competitiveness and so on. Understand, too, how corporates like PG were looking for corporate structures similar to their ownâ€”not sole traders or individuals. Even tho there was a good deal of money to made by individuals what mattered to PG was that soloists played, as it were, the corporate bow..
I am saying am I not that there are two sides at least to business dealings.
As to the financial instruments that “blew up on them”, as you put it, there would be firm contention as to PG buying them “knowingly”. Given sellers’ gain contingent only upon the sale and not consequences arising, we could fairly and honestly say how not explaining those sales satisfactorily (or even adequately) was in the sellers’ interest/s.
No, I’ve no intent whatsoever of assuming devil’s advocate for a substantial ‘soap maker’ as numerous reports circa 1994 were to call PG. Arguable at the time and since has been well, one corporate against another. Both big enough to look after themselves. Looked at now though – and all the fuss today about ‘don’t understand these swaps and derivatives’ etc – shouldn’t we declare how that precedent has enabled the lack of corporate self-regulation to evolve. Big time!
Yet in the court proceedings against BT by a number of its victims in in these matters we see majority settlements against the bank.
Eve has linked to several to enable folks confirm this.
BT exercised a right to not admit culpability and there matters appear to rest. Well, not quite, a corporate doubtless pressed its own aggrieved purpose among the American corporate community and voila! BT ambitions were curtailed.
But goodonem for the tapes.. and their specific value in enabling many of us to figure out just how those interest rate instruments came to operate and slam PG’s ‘profit center’ policy for USD150+mn. And tell how callous those self-justifying BT dealers were. How slack BT management was for allowing it.
What has this got to do with JK..? Remains to be seen.
Travellrev and Jo Zinny: I cannot follow much of your discussion but believe you need a big thankyou for your efforts. May it all turn to Gold.
It’s for people like you that I do what I do.
Peace to you.
So it’s Ianmac’ s fault.
Naughty naughty HS!
Thanks Ianmac, maybe some day soon i can help a little in overcoming those hard to get points of understanding.. i admit they can appear the proverbial ‘blur’, but that’s up to me and finding a way… heh.
I can’t find who pointed to this from Anne Else on Scoop where she writes on all the many contradictions on What John Key has said to different audiences. No wonder his credibility is so shaky. Actually I feel a bit shaky when I consider the enormity of it!!!
I can’t find who pointed to this from Anne Else on Scoop where she writes on all the many contradictions on What John Key has said to different audiences. No wonder his credibility is so shaky. Actually I feel a bit shaky when I consider the enormity of it!!!
I can’t send this blocked by whom???
Anne Else says:
“In 2007 I heard John Key tell the Dominion Post that in 1987, “three months before any of those deals got decided [the H-fee deals, of $39 million on 11 January 1988 and $27 million on 7 September 1988, that put Allan Hawkins of Equiticorp in jail], I had left Elders. I never did the deals, I never knew about the deals, and wasn’t involved in them.” ”
I take it this means that Anne Else is putting in the parenthesis and it isnt another example of John Key changing his mind about when he found out about the first H-fee deal – like 20 years later.
You can get so fucked. Your not even funny anymore. I really have had it up to the whazoo with you.
You may not like what I write here, But I’m honest and committed and compassionate and that’s a whole lot more than I can say of you.
[lprent: Then don’t listen to him. ]
Now now no need for that kind of un-civil attack.
Can I also please assure all readers that Eve has not and will never have it up the wahzoo from me.
[lprent: I’ve observed that you do needle her. Perhaps you get what you deserve?]
I’m not even sure what a wahzoo is.
Re – Wahzoo – I’ve just been informed it’s a male phallus of eight inches or more – bizarre !