Police told the Government about Sabin’s problems

Written By: - Date published: 7:30 am, February 7th, 2015 - 218 comments
Categories: john key, national, national/act government, rodney hide, same old national - Tags: ,

It seems the noose is tightening. TV3 last night effectively confirmed that the Police complied with the no surprises policy and told the Government about Mike Sabin’s difficulties.

According to TV3:

The country’s top cop says police did not drop the ball when it came to telling the Government about the Mike Sabin issue under the ‘no surprises’ policy.

That means at least one senior government minister knew and that raises the question: why did it take so long for the Prime Minister to find out?

Police Minister Michael Woodhouse was talking freely with his Police Commissioner Mike Bush, as expected – especially when something big is going down.

“There is a ‘no surprises’ policy, obviously,” says Cmmr Bush. “The ‘no surprises’ policy relates to significant issues.”

Issues like a police investigation of a government MP definitely count as significant, but Mr Woodhouse refused to comment at Waitangi today.

So it appears that David Garrett and Rodney Hide are both correct when they said there is no way that the police would not have advised the Government of the investigation into Sabin.  These are not tree hugging namby pamby wet behind the ears liberals, these are hard right former politicians who would rather lose a limb than do anything to help the dreaded socialists get back into power.  But at least they have principles.

Andrew Little is again on the money.  From the same TV3 clip:

The Police Minister has [a] very simple question to answer which is when he was told about the investigation involving Mike Sabin,” says Labour leader Andrew Little. “It’s a pretty simple question, its needs a pretty straight answer, he should give it.”

It seems clear that the police told the Government about the investigation into Sabin.  The only issue now is when.  Presuming it was before the time that Labour told the Prime Minister’s office a whole load of new questions need to be answered.  If I was to put money on it I would guess that the notification happened at the time that the police inquiry started which was no later than August 2014.  And if so you have to wonder why the former or current Police Ministers did not immediately sprint into the PM’s office and breathlessly tell him of what was happening, presuming they did not do so.

And the question will be, is this Government incompetent or has John Key been telling us fibs?

Meanwhile John Armstrong in the Herald thinks that Kiwis do not care that the Prime Minister may be lying to them and that Labour should concentrate on debating issues that matter.  Like having a new flag?  Good luck with that one John.

Next week in Parliament promises to be very interesting.

218 comments on “Police told the Government about Sabin’s problems ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Paul 1
    7 February 2015 at 7:39 am

    While John Armstrong is correct in saying that the issues around NZ possibly going to Iraq are important, correct about the RMA being important and correct about the Auckland housing bubble being important and correct to comment on the NZ public’s apathy, he is wrong to underestimate the story about Sabin.

    When people find out the crimes for which Sabin is accused of, then people will question Key’s defence of Sabin. This story is also important. I would not describe the interest in it as a frenzy.

    Secondly, it’s a bit rich for a NZ Herald ‘journalist’ lecturing Little on focusing on trivia, when the rag he works for has followed all sorts of nonsense in the past week, not least a voyeuristic frenzy about 2 office workers in Christchurch, which they have kept as news for a whole week.

    Maybe, just maybe, the NZ public has been dumbed down by so many years of celebrity, crime and sport sensation news, they have lost sight of what is important.

    And does the 4th estate bear any responsibility for this?

    Look in the mirror, John Armstrong.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11397970

    • Vagabundo 1.1
      7 February 2015 at 7:48 am

      Plus, you now, Armstrong going mental over Cunliffe writing a “letter” that was apparently a resignation level offense. Holy double standards, Batman!

  2. Pete George 2
    7 February 2015 at 7:51 am

    Armstrong makes some interesting points.

    There is one word that adequately describes this latest instalment in Key’s enemies’ long-running fixation with typecasting the Prime Minister as being nothing more than money merchant turned political huckster who, at times, enjoys a strange and somewhat strained relationship with the truth.

    That word is pathetic.

    Continuing to flog a lame horse can look pathetic.

    The paucity of information has wiser heads withholding judgment on Key’s handling of the matter.

    Key’s opponents have instead seized what might have seemed an opportunity to castigate him which was, in fact, never there.

    It was worth a bit of a bash but beating a hasty retreat until there’s an opportunity for a winnable fight is an important political skill.

    Little realised he had gone too far and refused to repeat the accusation when questioned subsequently.

    Little has indicated several times that he learns from over-egging an issue and recognises when to back off.

    Occasional fights well fought are far more effective than numerous skanky skirmishes.

    ‘Gotcha’ frenzies usually end up doing little more than frustrating the frantics.

    • tc 2.1
      7 February 2015 at 7:57 am

      Can villa play another match without scoring petey

    • One Anonymous Bloke 2.2
      7 February 2015 at 8:19 am

      Albacore tuna belong to the Scombridae family (mackerels, tunas).

    • Tautoko Mangō Mata 2.3
      7 February 2015 at 8:53 am

      John Armstrong ignores the fact that SOMEONE is going to have to take responsibility for making the decision to go ahead with allowing a National candidate (involved in a police investigation for undisclosed offences other than “assault”) to stand for an election knowing full well that a by-election would be necessary should the nature of the offences become public.

      The issue, John Armstrong, is that the SOMEONE is not putting his/her hand up, so as a member of the 4th estate, how about trying to find out who gave the ultimate OK instead of putting the boot into Labour and the left, while devoting a column openly supporting John Key.

      Will the Tax Payers Union demand the National Party repay the cost of the by-election?

      • John Shears 2.3.1
        7 February 2015 at 9:08 am

        Well said TMM

        • North 2.3.1.1
          7 February 2015 at 11:22 am

          Excellent point TMM. An inverse ‘follow the money’.

          I well recall the 2011 screaming about Hone and by-election cost when he resigned Te Tai Tokerau after expulsion from the Maori Party. This is how Armstrong depicted the reasoning of the screamers at the time –

          http://www.nzherald.co.nz/maori/news/article.cfm?c_id=252&objectid=10722966 – “……the by-election is a waste of public money and designed solely to enable Harawira to be officially designated as parliamentary leader of his party, thus entitling the Mana Party to some $50,000-plus in taxpayer funding. ”

          What will Key-Shill’s reaction be when (as you predict TMM) it becomes unanswerable that those in the know (including, by any sensible interpretation of Armstrong’s own words today, Key himself) connived in Sabin’s 2014 election candidacy ? Thereby inevitably putting in train a fully avoidable post-2014 by-election. Massive public cost set in train to prevent the breaking of this Key/National Party scandal before the 2014 election.

          Then lied with “didn’t know” and worse still, put out all this shit about Sabin only just missing out on Cabinet – a device substantially a lie to cover the “didn’t know ” lie.

          I think Armstrong’s trumped his risible “resign, resign” exhortation to Cunliffe. That was just over-exuberant shill shit – here he purports to sanitise indeed applauds as ‘the master at play’ cancerous political manipulation and corruption. While irritatedly, insultingly chasing off anyone who questions with the brand “pathetic”.

      • Tracey 2.3.2
        7 February 2015 at 12:18 pm

        but, but, but it’s Labour’s fault… NOT SST or Slater who have been at the heart of exposing it… not Key or his party of Government Ministers for hushing it up prior to an election thus hiding an aspect of a candidate’s character and their own… Nope it’s clearly all about Little.

      • ankerawshark 2.3.3
        7 February 2015 at 10:11 pm

        100+ TMM

    • North 2.4
      7 February 2015 at 8:56 am

      Vintage half-arsed musings of PettyPetey @ 2 – “……..some interesting points……mmmm……mmmm…….(from the carpet slippers).”

      Now, let me see if I can address my bacon and eggs through the tears of my laughter at PettyPetey’s aphrodisiacal application of “some interesting points”.

      Petey (in crescendo) – “mmmmmmMMMMMM !!!”

    • Dave 2.5
      7 February 2015 at 10:19 am

      Oh look, Pete George is one of those people who’s “comfortable” with outright corruption from our Prime Minister. Because that’s the only thing that this can be called, when the PM knowingly puts someone who’s being investigated by the Police into an oversight position over those Police.

      That we have a media who doesn’t give the slightest damn about this facet of the conversation, and only cares about the “he said, she said” side, is incredibly scary. Anyone who focuses on that side of the story can only be deliberately playing it up in order to cover for the government.

      • Pete George 2.5.1
        7 February 2015 at 12:57 pm

        “when the PM knowingly puts someone who’s being investigated by the Police into an oversight position over those Police”

        I haven’t seen any evidence of that yet. If I do I’ll condemn it, but until then I won’t make assumptions.

        • rhinocrates 2.5.1.1
          7 February 2015 at 1:03 pm

          While cartilaginous fish are popularly considered to be “primitive”, manta rays and their relatives in fact have the highest brain-to-body-weight ratio of any fish and demonstrate a great deal of curiosity. Moreover, both they and certain sharks, such as the great white, are not absolutely exothermic, but employ means to keep the brain at a higher temperature than the surrounding environment, enabling them to function at a high level in deep, cold water.

          • Molly 2.5.1.1.1
            8 February 2015 at 7:59 am

            I hate to mention it, but if you keep up with this, I’m going to look forward to Pete George’s comments. 🙂

        • Clemgeopin 2.5.1.2
          7 February 2015 at 1:29 pm

          @Pete George:

          You may not have seen “any” evidence of that, but surely you do have at least some common sense and at least a little small brain to put 2 and 2 together and draw some reasonable conclusions as a political blogger?

        • The Murphey 2.5.1.3
          7 February 2015 at 3:14 pm

          Q. If it were all hushed away with permanent name suppression and a locked file never aired in public does that mean the evidence you would/could not see did not exist ?

          Q. Do probable cause motive and previous exist in your world ?

        • Naturesong 2.5.1.4
          7 February 2015 at 4:55 pm

          Herald 03 Feb 2015: “Mr Key said he himself had found out on December 1.”

          Herald 15 Jan 2015: “This morning, Mr Key said he was comfortable with Mr Sabin holding the role of chairman of the law and order select committee.”

          I think your blindness is wilful.

          • tracey 2.5.1.4.1
            7 February 2015 at 5:18 pm

            nice linking

          • Pete George 2.5.1.4.2
            7 February 2015 at 6:23 pm

            That could be damning for Key – if it we ever get to find out why Sabin resigned. If what I think may be the case turns out to be the case I’ll be one of the first to condemn.

            As a general comment I would condemn any decision to appoint someone position in Government (or Parliament) who was known to be guilty of serious assault related crimes. And if it became known that someone who was in any position in Government was known to be guilty of serious assault related crimes I’d expect them to be stood down from the position and the party.

            But as I’ve said, there’s currently insufficient facts known. And it’s possible that will remain the case. And I acknowledge that Key may be banking on that.

            • Stuart Munro 2.5.1.4.2.1
              7 February 2015 at 6:29 pm

              So what’s your position on Gerry Brownlee?

              • Pete George …
                7 February 2015 at 6:33 pm

                ??
                I’m not aware of Gerry Brownlee having anything to do with this. Are you on the wrong thread? Or do you know something that no one else here has mentioned?

            • tracey 2.5.1.4.2.2
              7 February 2015 at 6:34 pm

              Both those facts were available to you when you posted your original post today and subsequent… is there a reason you don’t answer my questions which directly relate to your original post today?

              • Pete George …
                7 February 2015 at 6:56 pm

                Was that when you were joking, or when you were writing about fish, or did you try asking serious questions somewhere?

                • tracey …
                  7 February 2015 at 6:59 pm

                  Clever but I only posted the fish thing after trying to enter dialogue with you. That you know I posted about fish (puffer fish) means you read my posts directed to you, asking questions but choose not to answer the questions raised. That is your prerogative but don’t run off to your blog or even post here about how hard it is to have a mature discussion here when you don’t play your part.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 2.5.1.4.2.3
              7 February 2015 at 6:43 pm

              The New Zealand goatfish also known as the red mullet can be easily identified by twin barbells hanging beneath its chin. These provide sensitive taste buds. The goat fish has the chameleon ability to make lightning-quick changes of both color and pattern. While being cleaned it may flush brilliant red, perhaps to render the skin parasites more visible by contrast.

            • Naturesong 2.5.1.4.2.4
              7 February 2015 at 7:55 pm

              Yup, it’s that wierd game we play as a society.

              Until it’s legally in the public domain everyone is supposed to ignore the herd of elephants stampeding through the room.

          • felix 2.5.1.4.3
            7 February 2015 at 6:36 pm

            Oh dear.

            “As I speak to you today, I’m very happy for him to continue in the position he does”

            That is extremely disturbing given that – despite this silly game – we all know what Sabin did.

            • tracey 2.5.1.4.3.1
              7 February 2015 at 6:55 pm

              well, I don’t. I have an idea of broad generalities of a type of crime but certainly not the “too horrendous for words” aspect.

              • felix …
                7 February 2015 at 7:00 pm

                Which makes it even worse for Key to express such satisfaction.

                • tracey …
                  7 February 2015 at 7:03 pm

                  agree but I am not yet sure what amounts to horrendous in “why wont people see I am trying to save humanity” Slater’s eyes… given some of the mucky things he has said and done.

            • Anne 2.5.1.4.3.2
              7 February 2015 at 6:57 pm

              … we all know what Sabin did.

              Just as we know John Key knew what he did back in August.

              And later (October?) he approved Sabin’s appointment as Chairman of the Law and Order select committee.

              • Skinny …
                7 February 2015 at 7:55 pm

                One thing you can count on is Judith Collins would not have made the same mistake as we are now being lead to believeTolley and or Woodhouse have. No love lost between her and Sabin, when you consider he wanted her portfolio as Minister of justice. Let hope the media ask her, I’m sure she would be happy to confirm this if asked by them, especially Brook.

                • Anne …
                  7 February 2015 at 8:41 pm

                  As far as I can tell, Brook Sabin hasn’t appeared on TV3 since before Xmas. Fair enough too. It must be a very stressful time for him. There are many off-spring who have had the sins of their father visited upon them. I hope TV3 is looking after him.

                  • Clemgeopin …
                    7 February 2015 at 9:21 pm

                    Well said, Anne.

                  • Skinny …
                    8 February 2015 at 12:33 pm

                    I will give TV3 head of news credit for pushing the boundaries of the suppression order by immediately after a Key/Sabin news item running a UK story about changes to laws relating to victims of crime. That would have got the sheep thinking.

              • Olwyn …
                7 February 2015 at 11:34 pm

                Do we know? I certainly don’t, but one thing I am confident of, is that someone either charged or about to be charged with a serious crime should not be chairing a select committee on law and order.

                The whole thing is mind boggling to me. According to Key, Sabin has stepped down for family and personal reasons. According to others, he has been charged with a crime “too horrendous for words.” The more general term “assault” has also been mentioned. Note that he has not, so far as I know, yet been found guilty yet of any crime.

                Then there is the question of “when did Key know?” It is not just whether or not he is lying. It is whether his party knowingly let the guy stand for election when a bi-election was highly likely, and whether he knowingly let him chair the select committee while facing serious charges. With this last one, he must have, since he defended his decision on Jan 15th, according to one commentator. Alongside all this is the case that may or may not be related, where everything about it is suppressed apart from the fact that it involves a “prominent New Zealander.”

                The whole thing looks utterly cavalier and unfair to to everyone involved, including Sabin, who while subject to wide speculation is still innocent until he is found guilty. Such jaw-dropping shabbiness should not be just let pass, as some have been suggesting.

                • Clemgeopin …
                  8 February 2015 at 12:09 am

                  You are correct.
                  What is striking is our low calibre, docile and probably biased/ beholden/compromised journalists (apart from a very small number being the exception) that have not relentlessly pursued and gone to the police commissioner (until yesterday), the two Ministers and the PM and flushed the bottom of the untruthful, half truthful, silence, avoidance or bullshitting of BASIC questions. The journalists are supposed to do their very important job as the fourth estate of democracy. It is the responsibility, DUTY and purpose of their profession!

                  Compare this to the way they attacked Clark, Goff, Shearer and Cunliffe on so many pretty insignificant simple issues or minor errors! There is something rotten with our media by and large.

                • Anne …
                  8 February 2015 at 9:50 am

                  It looks to me the case you refer to and the stories which abound re- Mike Sabin are one and the same. According to a well known blogger, who appears to have inside information, a guilty plea at a court hearing has already been submitted. Time will tell if that is correct.

                  • Olwyn …
                    8 February 2015 at 1:52 pm

                    Does anyone know who ordered the blanket suppression, or is that information also suppressed? It looks more and more as if “middle New Zealand” will endure anything whatsoever from this government, apart from a significant credit downgrading and/or a collapse of property values. And the contrast between the media handling of this situation and David Cunliffe’s nine-year old letter could not show up the bias and calibre of our media in sharper relief. As Clemgeopin has noted. Sigh.

                    • Anne …
                      8 February 2015 at 2:39 pm

                      My understanding is, it was a District Court Judge who ordered the blanket suppression. I’m extremely suspicious of the whole scenario surrounding this case. It smells and looks like political interference to me.

                      Having said that, I have much sympathy for the alleged victims and understand the need to protect their identities at this time. But this is no different from the many victims of similar unlawful behaviour, and it is beyond comprehension that ALL the details surrounding this case has been subjected to a suppression order. I can’t recall a single instance of it in recent decades.

                      It smacks of a concerted attempt (involving key members of the MSM?) to protect John Key and his govt. colleagues from the inevitable fallout, and his [albeit probably indirect] influence in the ‘exceptional’ nature of the suppression order.

        • You_Fool 2.5.1.5
          7 February 2015 at 10:19 pm

          Although Naturesong pointed it out previously as well, PG you have an issue in that there are only a limited number of possible “worlds” we live in in regards to the “Mike Sabin issue” and really none of them look particularly good for the competency/truthfulness of the national government (both those qualities being good qualities for a government to hold.)

          Facts we know:
          1) Mike Sabin has resigned
          2) Police are investigating him for a serious offence
          3) The police have been doing so since August last year
          4) The police have not dropped the ball on the ‘no surprises policy’
          5) John Key knows about the issue since at least December 7 (I will give him the first week)
          6) In early Feb John Key saw no reason to remove Mike Sabin from the Chair of a law and order select committee

          Things that logically follow
          3, 4 &5 suggest that Police told the Police minister about the investigation sometime between August and December. Given that the no surprises policy requires that the Police inform their minister as soon as possible it is reasonable to assume that the Police Minister was told in August, or at least the very beginning of September. I do except their may have been an escalation in the investigation over time that meant that the seriousness of the issue increased between August and December (or maybe the charges changed in that time?)

          Things that we can assume which are highly likely to be correct
          Mike Sabin resigned due to the issue which the police have been investigating: This is because his resignation came at the end of a week where there had been mounting media exposure on the issue, which suggested it was about to be exposed further. This maybe due to a change in the charges, or maybe additional evidence being found and brought to him by the police such that he realised that he could not fight it further, but this doesn’t gel with the way it has been reported.

          Thus it appears to me there are a few worlds we live in

          1) Mike Sabin has been charged with a minor offense that wouldn’t affect his role as a member of parliament nor as the chair of the law and order select committee but some other non-related family issue made him unable to continue / he decided to step down independently. The Police let the Police Minister(s) know who let John Key know in Late Nov/early Dec.

          2) Mike Sabin was originally investigated for a minor offense which was similar to above but reported earlier, then in late Nov/early Dec the charges were upgraded to a more serious matter. John Key knowing but deciding that “innocent till proven innocent” was an overriding standard for the way to run his government was happy for him to stay on, but Mike Sabin resigned anyway once media pressure got more intense / he decided to step down independently.

          3) Mike Sabin has been investigated for a serious offense since August, Police let the Police minister(s) know but they did not tell John Key until early Dec, John Key operated as per 2)

          4) Same as 3 but Key decided to try and ignore the issue and ride it out until it gained traction in the MSM and then Sabin resigned

          5) Mike Sabin has been investigated for a serious offense since August and Police told the Police Minister(s) who then told John Key who covered it up in the wake of the dirty politics scandal until well after the election, at which time a by-election could be safely held

          The only world in which John Key gets a free pass (maybe) is world one; but that doesn’t really sit well with the way the world is actually working. If it was a minor charge and/or Sabin quit for unrelated issues then at least one player in this would have said so, which would shut the opposition down and make them look like fools. So it is probably safe to discount world 1.

          World 2 suffers a similar issue, in that the story could be shut down by a few simple answers and facts which have not come out, thus world 2 is also extremely unlikely.

          World 3,4&5 imply that either the Police Ministers are incompetent (and should be sacked) or that this government is working to hide information that shines any member of the government in a bad light and is actively suppressing any such bad actions. Neither of these things are good for the NZ public to have in their governments. I also note that neither the previous nor current Police Minister have been lambasted for not telling the PM sooner which would be the case in world 3 and make world 4 & 5 look the same as world 3 where John Key keeps to look like a good thing. It’s even early in the term, so the ministers could serve a year on the back bench then be back into ministerial portfolios come 2016

          • felix 2.5.1.5.1
            7 February 2015 at 11:31 pm

            I admire your optimism expecting Pete to acknowledge the if/then relationship between premises and conclusions…

            • One Anonymous Bloke 2.5.1.5.1.1
              8 February 2015 at 10:23 am

              It’s all just more original material for Yawns 🙄

              • Clemgeopin …
                8 February 2015 at 1:50 pm

                The fool has turned his blog into an anti-standard silly rag with several articles by copying material, comments from here. His criticism of the Standard authors and comments is quite childish. I went there because he posted earlier here that he had written about ‘You_fool’s’ comment about Sabin and gave a link. Then I had a look at his daily forum where he replies to what time Stephanie Rodgers wakes up from bed!

                Some one wrote, “Stephenie Rodgers and Karol have not rocked on up to it yet. If Ms Rodgers twitter feed offers insight into her habits then I bet she still tucked up in bed at this late morning hour, lol.”

                In reply, Pete George says, “She has rocked up now:
                http://thestandard.org.nz/tino-rangatiratanga/#comment-965062
                Funny.”

                A little later he criticises Weka.
                Some one tells him that Weka has had a go at him and PG replies,

                “Pete George
                / February 8, 2015
                Yes, that’s standard practise. If Weka had her way commenting on every post would be limited to people with her required level of expertise and political leaning.”

                I felt stupid wasting my time on his pathetic crap of a blog. What is wrong with Pete? Surely he has better sense than that?

          • Pete George 2.5.1.5.2
            8 February 2015 at 10:18 am

            You_Fool – I think this covers things very well based on what is publicly known.

            I’ve posted your summary:
            http://yournz.org/2015/02/08/summarising-key-and-the-sabin-case/

            There’s some indication Sabin had no option but to resign if it’s true he appeared in court and may have pled guilty. We don’t know whether that has changed Key’s position on it or not.

            As I’ve said for more than a week most ‘worlds’ don’t look good at all for Key on this, especially given the seriousness of what is widely believed to be the nature of the alleged offences. Party/ministerial incompetence and/or wilful ignorance look to be some of the least damaging possibilities.

            But it’s not possible to be sure with insufficient facts.

            • Skinny 2.5.1.5.2.1
              8 February 2015 at 1:05 pm

              Yesterday I was enjoying watching the Rugby Seven’s at a local waterhole
              , a well connected friend I haven’t seen prior to Xmas filled in some gaps that were missing.

              I can now see Key slipping out of this by massaging the details and timeframes. One of you detective theories isn’t too far from the mark.

              Key is going to use this as a PR stunt to get the poor John what more could i have done treatment, thus hammering his detractors if they are not careful. Peters should be tasked with firing the main shots at question time to counter slippery Key’s slithering.

    • Tracey 2.6
      7 February 2015 at 12:14 pm

      By highlighting certain aspects of Amrstrong’s article could one be forgiven for thinking you agree with part of it? Or are you trying to highlight that he has forgotten his call for Cunliffe to resign over an 11 year old letter? A call that was emblazened as herald headline and yet never described as pathetic? That this Sabin thing was started by the SST and not Labour? That it has been fed by Slater not Labour? Perhaps John Armstrong needs a fact checker, or reality checker, or just a memory and an ability to think backwards as well as forwards.

    • Clemgeopin 2.7
      7 February 2015 at 12:22 pm

      “Armstrong makes some interesting points. There is one word that adequately describes this latest instalment” “That word is pathetic.”

      Peter George,

      Actually it is Armstrong and you that are pathetic fools here!

      This matter of Sabin scandal as to when Key KNEW about it IS very important as it goes to the very core of Key’s and this Government’s honesty, efficiency and integrity. If the allegations against Sabin are serious, then why did Key not take any action and why did he not stop his candidate selection?

      A bi-election is an expensive exercise for the tax payer and an unnecessary costly inconvenience for all due to Key’s behaviour and handling of the matter.

      So who knew what and when and who was told when and who has been telling the truth and who has been lying to the people of the country IS important.

      The police, the police ministers, PM’s office as well as the PM must come clean, be honest and tell the truth now. The same applies to Armstrong and you. There is no other way. Show some integrity and honesty. Stop being pathetic.

  3. Whateva next? 3
    7 February 2015 at 8:27 am

    Paul, don’t forget cheap alcohol aswell as crap tv, sensationalist media and celebrity politics.
    I think that social unrest caused by an ever increasing wealth divide IS IMPORTANT, so whilst Key is only just waking up to other people’s lives, and atrocities abroad, sort your own country out first! Before it’s too late. He came over as sanctimonious and hypocritical, so far from akshully caring about the war which has been raging for some time.

  4. phillip ure 4
    7 February 2015 at 8:28 am

    “..And the question will be – is this Government incompetent – or has John Key been telling us fibs?..”

    ..is there an option to answer:..’both’…?

  5. Barfly 5
    7 February 2015 at 8:31 am

    playing chess is good for the mind

  6. Neil 6
    7 February 2015 at 8:47 am

    This just confirms someone is lying & how rotten to the core this Key lead government is. It beggars belief that Key was not informed of this when the investigation begun. John Armstrong’s article sounds like it was written for him by Crosby-Trextor for him to publish with his name on it.

  7. rawshark-yeshe 7
    7 February 2015 at 8:56 am

    Questions then, and some notes:

    So Police head Bush says Minister was told. But which Police Minister ?

    Woodhouse wasn’t the minister until after 2014 election.

    Anne Tolley was.

    And if NBR is correct, and it was likely as early as 2011 …..

    TA DA and loud drum roll …

    it was the Crusher Oravida Judith herself until, December 2011.

    So, which duplicitous Minister of Police was told and when ?

    And, similar question .. which head of Police was it ??

  8. Sirenia 8
    7 February 2015 at 9:10 am

    There is now a branch of Crosby Textor in NZ run by that blonde woman who used to advise key and was always in the TV shots. So he won’t have to go to Australia for consultation.

  9. gsays 9
    7 February 2015 at 9:10 am

    hi mickey, yes something about this stinks to high heaven.

    ‘Next week in Parliament promises to be very interesting.’
    that is correct but why o why do we have to wait for others on the teat, with their own shortcomings to probe.

    it is kinda shameful that of all those journalists, with their press passes, access to the power brokers etc none have the courage to ask a well structured, simple question and not settle for a patsy answer.

    i am not a big fan of some of tom scotts politics, but he had the balls to stick it to muldoon when that pm was at the height of his powers.

    • rawshark-yeshe 9.1
      7 February 2015 at 9:22 am

      actually, I think Tova O’Brien has done a sterling job this week on TV3 .. I have seen courage and determination in some of her questioning. The pollies run away from her to avoid further questioning.

      and Tom Scott ? Love him, always have.

      As I recall, the essay that finally got him banned from travelling with Muldoon included the detail that a baby seat had been installed in the back seat of the PM’s limousine, which had the wondrous result that for the very first time, Muldoon was able to look straight into the eyes of Oz PM, Malcolm Fraser !!

      Tom also noted that when Muldoon visited Oz, it produced the effect of reducing New Zealand’s overall intelligence while increasing Australia’s at the same time.

      Love you Tom !! 😀

  10. wyndham 10
    7 February 2015 at 9:30 am

    Key is vital to NACT (Inc) – – – he is the clean, smiling, nice Mr, Key. Without this front man (a damned skilled one) there are only such people as Joyce, Brownlee, English and the acerbic Findlayson to fall back on. They certainly don’t come across well.
    Watch him completely avoid any culpability whatsoever. It’ll all be laid at the feet of a minion – – – possibly the minister of Police.

  11. freedom 11
    7 February 2015 at 9:44 am

    Question for National Party supporters/ voters:

    Are you satisfied with the totality of the PM’s comments regarding the sudden resignation of Mike Sabin?

    • Paul 11.1
      7 February 2015 at 9:47 am

      Are you expecting an honest answer from Gosman?

    • Pete George 11.2
      7 February 2015 at 10:28 am

      I’m not satisfied with the totality of the PM’s comments regarding the sudden resignation of Mike Sabin, but I’m aware there are significant legal constraints as to what can be said about it.

      That’s obviously a convenient excuse for Key but it’s how the current situation is and trying to make a mountain out of a moanhill is unlikely to prove anything.

      • Murray Rawshark 11.2.1
        7 February 2015 at 10:35 am

        What are these significant legal restraints? What were they before the election? Stop talking kaka, for dog’s sake.

        • weka 11.2.1.1
          7 February 2015 at 11:32 am

          The kākā is a member of the Strigopidae or parrot family, and has 3 cousins in NZ, the kea, the kākāpō, and the now extinct Chatham kākā. There are no beige parrots native to NZ.

          • Tracey 11.2.1.1.1
            7 February 2015 at 12:24 pm

            lol

          • freedom 11.2.1.1.2
            7 February 2015 at 1:11 pm

            Although not as well known as many of New Zealand’s birds, The Great Squawking Tit is a fascinating creature. It can be spotted in many environs, urban and rural, but resides primarily in Ōtepoti on the rugged East Coast of the lower South Island. By adapting itself to the changing world, It also spends an inordinate amount of time away from its own nest making incessant demands for relevance.

            Sustaining itself on a simple diet consisting of withered roots from the Circulus in Probando it will on occasion pillage from the low hanging fruit of Vox Populi. After periods of prolonged gorging it has been regularly observed soiling its own nest.

            The nest itself is a generically weak construction, vented on all sides and with a fragile support base. The Great Squawking Tit dutifully maintains an oddly effective spring mechanism on its nest which flips a lid whenever threatened by bright lights, discarded marshmallows and any songs by Woody Guthrie. The nest is constantly being refashioned using an inexhaustible supply of threadbare viewpoints, which it purloins from whatever detritus falls from the roosts of its neighbours.

            The Great Squawking Tit seems especially fond of regurgitating items of interest defecated from The Blue Breasted Junket Catcher and does so with tacit approval from these more powerful creatures.

            The Great Squawking Tit lives in a limbo state of semi-permanent hibernation but rouses itself into somnambulism when under attack from its primary predator Homo sapiens Rationabilis.

            Known for its ability to mimic the calls of whichever species has dominance in its territory, The Great Squawking Tit is not under imminent threat of extinction.

            • Murray Rawshark 11.2.1.1.2.1
              7 February 2015 at 1:22 pm

              That gave me a laugh.

            • Clemgeopin 11.2.1.1.2.2
              7 February 2015 at 2:04 pm

              “The nest itself is a generically weak construction, vented on all sides and with a fragile support base. The Great Squawking Tit dutifully maintains an oddly effective spring mechanism on its nest which flips a lid whenever threatened by bright lights, discarded marshmallows and any songs by Woody Guthrie. The nest is constantly being refashioned using an inexhaustible supply of threadbare viewpoints, which it purloins from whatever detritus falls from the roosts of its neighbours”

              Very nice, funny and so educative! I think ‘The Great Squawking Tit’ which can at times be an irritating vexatious pest also goes by a different cool banana monicker in OurNz. Will look forward to more of your comments!

            • weka 11.2.1.1.2.3
              7 February 2015 at 2:26 pm

              Very good freedom, on par with Rhinocrates’.

          • McFlock 11.2.1.1.3
            7 February 2015 at 3:27 pm

            Be fair. At least pete made a contribution this time:

            Freedom addressed a question to National party supporters/voters.
            Pete answered.

            Pete therefore regards himself as a national party supporter and/or voter (which will no doubt come a a shock to those people who saw his efforts as an editor of a fact-checking site).

            As fair as I knew until this thread, I thought he was still claiming to be neutral/undecided/openminded/beige

      • dv 11.2.2
        7 February 2015 at 10:35 am

        >>>Mike Sabin, but I’m aware there are significant legal constraints as to what can be said about it.
        That is an assumption as the district? court order is all encompassing.

      • freedom 11.2.3
        7 February 2015 at 11:24 am

        “but I’m aware there are significant legal constraints as to what can be said about it.”
        Can you provide evidence that issues relating to Mike Sabin are under any form of legal restraint?
        ( I have not seen it but the video from TVOne about the aforementioned ‘gaff’ by the PM linking the Sabin topic to court action is not turning up in searches)

        Until a specific announcement that says otherwise you are assuming, as is everyone, that incredibly broad suppression orders from an unspecified court about unspecified charges relating to an unspecified person are in fact linked to Mike Sabin.

        That is what it has come to.
        That is what the PM is relying on and that is what the media should be framing the situation as, but they are not.

        The PM should be asked specifically if Mike Sabin has faced charges.
        His answer can only be one of two responses then.
        1: I am unable to answer that question owing to matters before the court.
        2: No.

        if I have that wrong i am happy , as always, to be corrected

        • rawshark-yeshe 11.2.3.1
          7 February 2015 at 3:12 pm

          @freedom .. I think the TV One link is one I mentioned .. it was Key replying late in an interview with Rawdon Christie on the breakfast programme. Now Sabin resigned on Friday Jan 30 .. so maybe Monday or Tuesday this last week ? I’ll try to find it for you .. I believe Key breached a suppression order with his mistake and his conclusions by tying two salient facts together…

          • freedom 11.2.3.1.1
            7 February 2015 at 3:45 pm

            I did spend some time looking for it earlier today but please do have a crack at locating it, would be good to see, if only for his body language.

            The only video available from earlier in the Breakfast week is the Eleanor Catton segment. (what a shock that is still there eh!)

            Ministry of Truth, alive and well in NZ

          • rawshark-yeshe 11.2.3.1.2
            7 February 2015 at 3:46 pm

            @freedom .. sorry, can’t find it. can find the other things Key said that morning on Breakfast re Eleanor Catton and ISIS, but not the relevant part of his Christie interview.

            I questioned at the time if Key had done an illegal thing .. and maybe he truly did and this is why it has disappeared from view ?

            Will keep looking for you … this was my comment earlier in the week … so I certainly read a transcript of it somewhere…

            rawshark-yeshe 8
            3 February 2015 at 1:00 pm
            I read yesterday that Key, being questioned about Sabin,had inadvertently linked two items together that had previously not been linked. One of them was the court hearing subject to extreme secrecy and details suppression.

            Has Key thus broken the suppression order ?

            • freedom 11.2.3.1.2.1
              7 February 2015 at 4:12 pm

              I doubt you will find anything rawshark-yeshe

              It has been never-was’d
              then again… it might have been accidental you know …

              -The Onion: “CIA Realizes It’s Been Using Black Highlighters All These Years”

              “Why did it go on for this long, and this far?” said [CIA Director Porter Goss] in a press conference called shortly after the report’s release. “I’m as frustrated as anyone. You can’t read a single thing that’s been highlighted. Had I been there to advise [former CIA director] Allen Dulles, I would have suggested the traditional yellow color—or pink.”

      • ghostwhowalksnz 11.2.4
        7 February 2015 at 12:08 pm

        Its fun to watch Pete George’s political half truths delivered with weapons grade trolling land amoungst the Standardinistas, who then jump in to make him eat his own dog food.

      • Tracey 11.2.5
        7 February 2015 at 12:26 pm

        what proof do you have that the sabin assault is subject to significant restraint? Are you saying Sabin is the accused in the recently suppressed case, cos that would be a breath of the Court order. When did this matter become legally constrained in your opinion, please give us a date, cos it seems many people including slater have been “talking” about this for months…

        [I would prefer we steered away from discussion on this point just in case – MS]

  12. rawshark-yeshe 12
    7 February 2015 at 10:23 am

    here’s a first … Cameron Slater makes the unequivocal statement that he does not trust Key.

    Scroll down thru comments on this page re Sabin’s issues and PM on the site we do not directly link to …

    http://www.donotlink.com/dkkj

    • Murray Rawshark 12.1
      7 February 2015 at 10:43 am

      I see the moderator there is saying that people aren’t allowed to talk about Sabin because of the suppressed court case. We cannot know that Sabin was the defendant, so surely not talking about what he did would be saying that he was the defendant, and thus breaking the suppression order?

      Shit things get convoluted when Tories go bad. FJK.

    • Tracey 12.2
      7 February 2015 at 12:27 pm

      and yet was recently happy to do stuff to help him subject NZ to his dodgy ethics.

    • Alpha z 12.3
      7 February 2015 at 1:07 pm

      sum intresting comms over on that website. here is sum of it;
      ~~~~~~~~~~~
      Pete • 4 hours ago;

      ‘The obsession lies in the fact that Key continued to support someone who, if you were allowed to know the details, we would all immediately vilify as someone who should not be walking the streets, let alone be considered for a ministerial position.
      It’s not about getting rid of Sabin. He’s gone, never to return. The problem here is that the National Party seems to have blinkers when it comes to its members being part of violence. The problem is that a bottle of wine or a phone call can get you fired, but violence is ok. It isn’t a barrier to advancement in National.
      That is the obsession.
      And of course, that makes the ‘when did he know it’, important. Because if Key truly found out months after everyone else, he’s sort of in the clear. Although how you can imagine his Chief of Staff and senior ministers not warning him he was about to walk into a wasp nest is inconceivable.’
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~
      Pete • 5 hours ago

      ‘There are a number of reactions
      – do nothing
      – stand someone down until the black clouds clear
      – continue to publicly support the person by making him chair of the law and order select committee and and lining him up for a ministerial post.
      Seriously… can’t anyone see what’s wrong here?
      The ONLY way to explain Key’s behaviour is if he didn’t know until a little while ago.
      He’s now in a spot where either he’s not being told about his own MPs being under police investigation for alleged assault, or he did know and went ahead anway.
      Either way we have a huge failure on our hands. Once people stop telling the PM (or the PMO) critical stuff like that, it is likely deliberate. It is a sign of internal problems.
      And the ‘obsession’ here is that this blog has never accepted “that kind of (alleged) violence” from anyone, and we should not trivialise it or ignore it because it may hurt the careers of people we see as being critical to keeping a Labour government out’
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      la la land • 4 hours ago

      I completely agree re the violence aspect of this and think that anyone with a history of violence should be gone from the National Party and I understand that there is someone in a senior role here that should have gone a long time ago…
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      Cam Slater • 4 hours ago

      Here’s the thing…I don’t trust him at all…and I txt him.
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      • Tracey 12.3.1
        7 February 2015 at 1:15 pm

        Lest ANYONE think Slater is motivated by ethics or a sense of right and wrong…

        “because it may hurt the careers of people we see as being critical to keeping a Labour government out’”

      • Pete George 12.3.2
        7 February 2015 at 1:38 pm

        I completely agree re the violence aspect of this and think that anyone with a history of violence should be gone from the National Party and I understand that there is someone in a senior role here that should have gone a long time ago.

        I agree. Party President.

        Here’s the thing…I don’t trust him at all…and I txt him.

        An odd comment, not sure what texting someone has got to do with honesty.

        I don’t trust Slater any more than I trust Key. Evidence is required.

        • mickysavage 12.3.2.1
          7 February 2015 at 1:40 pm

          Here is the thing Pete. Can you imagine Slater not immediately telling Key the instant he heard about the rumours? And do you think this may be why Slater is saying that he does not believe Key?

          • whateva next? 12.3.2.1.1
            7 February 2015 at 1:48 pm

            Is the recent poll announced out of the blue, saying Key should stop texting Slater a tactic to discredit Slater before he finally blows the whistle?

          • Karen 12.3.2.1.2
            7 February 2015 at 1:49 pm

            Exactly Micky. That is the point nobody seems to be making.

            WO knew about the Sabin rumours, and Key is in regular contact with him. Chances are that WO keeps his txts. So …. if WO did tell him then he has the evidence of when Key knew. But maybe WO would rather hold onto that info for his own purposes. The elevation of Judith Collins maybe?

            • Pete George 12.3.2.1.2.1
              7 February 2015 at 1:58 pm

              “Key is in regular contact with him”

              Both Key and Slater have said that’s no longer the case, and from what I’ve seen that’s likely to be correct. Most of Slater’s (parliamentary) National sources appeared to have dried up under instruction.

              • freedom …
                7 February 2015 at 2:22 pm

                “Most of Slater’s (parliamentary) National sources appeared to have dried up , under instruction ” bold mine
                And you know this how exactly?

                Remember Pete, you are the one who just said:
                “too little information to make assumptions without getting more solid evidence”

                What is your evidence for such a specific claim about Slater’s sources ?

                • Paul …
                  7 February 2015 at 2:24 pm

                  He’s slowly taking over the thread with his waffle.

                • Pete George …
                  7 February 2015 at 2:30 pm

                  The content of Whale Oil over the last five months change markedly – mostly consisting of the usual irrelevant trivia, a series of ‘poor me’ posts, little that was newsworthy, virtually no breaking news. Plus a large number of ‘Little sucks’ posts so far this year, usually several a day.

                  I heard that National MPs had been advised to distance themselves from Slater. Most appeared to do that, probably willingly. There have been scant posts that could be attributed to inside (National) sources.

                  Slater and Belt have lamented being isolated.

                  There have been many other comments around social media about it.

                  • mickysavage …
                    7 February 2015 at 2:35 pm

                    So Pete do you have explanations why the other 30 + people who were likely in the know did not tell Key about Sabin’s problems?

                  • freedom …
                    7 February 2015 at 2:40 pm

                    So your evidence is in fact nothing more than an allusion to evidence.

                    A common process of discussion, that many people are also using to try to understand the Sabin situation, yet you consistently state how the proof that is out there is insufficient to build firm conclusions upon.

                    Does that about cover it?

                  • Tracey …
                    7 February 2015 at 2:44 pm

                    How many MPs were actually involved with him? most or a few (like Tolley, Collins, Key – ref Dirty Politics by Nicky Hager) – Mark Mitchell denies involvement with Slater in his selection as candidate doesn’t he?

          • Pete George 12.3.2.1.3
            7 February 2015 at 1:54 pm

            “Can you imagine Slater not immediately telling Key the instant he heard about the rumours? ”

            Yes I can imagine that. Slater has been very pissed off with Key for the last six months. He would put his own interests first (and his business interests) ahead of Key and of National.

            Slater keeps talking about playing a long game with ambitions long after Key has finished in politics. So I think he would stomp all over Key if he thought it would benefit him and his clients.

            Don’t forget that Slater is close to his client MP Mark Mitchell, who has apparently kept in touch with Mike Sabin (it doesn’t take much to guess a potential source for Slater).

            That’s another reason why I would prefer to wait for more facts.

            • mickysavage 12.3.2.1.3.1
              7 February 2015 at 2:00 pm

              Come on Pete. Key was receiving “unsolicited texts” from Slater as late as November 24 (http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/john-key-cameron-slater-text-messages-released-2014112623#axzz3QwroBRTG)

              So you are now saying that it is more likely that Slater is attempting to undermine Key and as evidence of this you rely on Slater’s client Mark Mitchell keeping in touch of Sabin. You seem to refuse to see the bleeding obvious and rely on obscure links to justify doing so.

              • Pete George …
                7 February 2015 at 2:05 pm

                No I’m not relying on anything – there’s a number of unreliable people involved remember.

                I think there’s too many agendas and too little information to make assumptions without getting more solid evidence.

                And I suggest that some here are cherry picking unreliable information to try and fit what they want to be the case.

                • mickysavage …
                  7 February 2015 at 2:06 pm

                  If you are so keen to reserve judgment on what happened why are you continuously trying to defend Key?

                  • Pete George …
                    7 February 2015 at 2:18 pm

                    I’m not trying to defend Key. There’s a big difference between defending someone and holding judgement due to a lack of information. In fact I’ve been critical of how Key has handled this.

                    • Tracey …
                      7 February 2015 at 2:29 pm

                      So, do you agree with Armstrong’s take or not? You seem, from the bit you added at the end think, like Armstrong that this is pathetic and a Labour attempt at gotcha… yet the evidence to date is

                      SST broke the story
                      Slater’s been drip feeding innuendo etc
                      LF being more overt

                      NOT Labour.

                      Little has challenged Key, calle dhim a “liar”, which is true if you look at previous stuff which has been prove (see Fletcher appointment and other occassions).

                      Armstrong almost hysterically called for Cunliffe’s resignation over an 11 year old letter… yet over this…

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    7 February 2015 at 2:27 pm

                    Under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, name suppression can occur for a number of reasons – sections 200 through 208.

                    When does suppression start? When charges are laid, or when a complaint is made?

                    How would this affect what the police were able to tell the minister?

                    • Pete George …
                      7 February 2015 at 2:33 pm

                      Good questions that I haven’t seen answered.

                      How would it affect what the Minister could say publicly – or say to the Prime Minister?

                      Nothing on it from Geddis at Pundit or Edgeler at PA.

                    • Tracey …
                      7 February 2015 at 2:33 pm

                      It can’t, imo, start before charges are laid because an accused has no standing to ask the Court for name suppression because they are not part of a criminal justice process per se.

                      When the police began investigating i doubt there would be suppression per se cos no Court is involved. Once someone is charged they would probably apply for name suppression at their first court appearance.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      7 February 2015 at 2:36 pm

                      Tracey, or MS, what about automatic suppression?

                    • mickysavage …
                      7 February 2015 at 2:37 pm

                      The Police would certainly tell the Minister the nature of an inquiry into an MP and Bush has pretty well confirmed that this occurred from his comments.

                    • Tracey …
                      7 February 2015 at 2:38 pm

                      OAB

                      I still think the earliest would be when charges are laid and the first appearance is usually pretty soon thereafter… victims name could be suppressed from investigation though but there is no defendant until charges are laid?

                    • Tracey …
                      7 February 2015 at 2:41 pm

                      Minister or PM would not have to give any details but could say

                      “Mr Sabin is currently under investigation (and later add) facing charges on a matter that is sub judice, accordingly I have decided it is prudent to have him stand down as Chair (and member) of the Law and Order Committee especially as it is embarking on a review of the NZ Police. I have left it to him to decide if he remains in parliament on the basis that all kiwis are innocent til proven guilty. I cannot say more than that.”

                      No breach of anything in that statement.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      7 February 2015 at 2:45 pm

                      So, until charges were laid there was no name suppression, and the Police would have been free to tell the Minister without breaching suppression.

                      Never mind Key, when Sabin’s name came forward as chair of the Law & Order Select Committee, why didn’t the Minister object?

                      Knowing the nature of the investigation, what, he just passed it on up the chain and let someone else decide the difficult ethical dilemma?

                    • Tracey …
                      7 February 2015 at 2:48 pm

                      OAB

                      The thing is, that we are assuming Sabin is under a suppression order. The PM can only not comment, imo, if he is. OR the Pm is not wanting to interfere in a criminal process BUT that also means more than “family and personal reasons”. So, the hole gets deeper for Key. See my comment above, and Mickey can add his 2 cents but i don’t see how that would be breaching anything, either from key to the public or, as you say, the Police Minister to Key.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      7 February 2015 at 2:57 pm

                      …we’re assuming…

                      Hmm, true. Here be dragons!

                    • Pete George …
                      7 February 2015 at 3:03 pm

                      Remember that police refused to comment at all when media started asking serious questions about a possible inquiry in December. Is that normal or common procedure? On what basis are they able to refuse to comment on an inquiry?

                      And remember that in certain types of cases name suppression is automatic to protect the victims. If that didn’t apply from the outset – when inquiries began rather than waiting until charges were laid or court appearances then the suppression would easily be ineffective.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      7 February 2015 at 3:07 pm

                      Who to pay attention to? Two lawyers saying the same thing, or someone droning on about fish?

                      Decisions, decisions.

                      Specialist squid rods really are a joy to use, and can be anywhere from 2.3m (7.5’) to 2.75m (9’) in length. Made from graphite, they are very light, weighing between 110 and 140g, but also very delicate, so you risk breaking them by using them to target large, powerful fish.

                    • Pete George …
                      7 February 2015 at 3:13 pm

                      It’s reasonable to assume Bush told the Minister of Police. Was that Tolley or Woodhouse? If he told Tolley would he also have to tell Woodhouse?

                      If there was automatic suppression would the Minister of Police be allowed to tell anyone else (including the PM)?

                    • Tracey …
                      7 February 2015 at 3:16 pm

                      Oab

                      Do you remember roastbusters?

                      the police eventually commented but not at first and said they had no formal complaint when it turned out they did? no automatic name suppression as i recall. do yoy think saying you dont have a formal complaint when you did and delaying your investigation is normal or common police procedure? I think the PM commented on it too… something about the boys needing to grow up.

                      Puffer fish

                      Tetraodontidae is a family of primarily marine and estuarine fish of the orderTetraodontiformes. The family includes many familiar species, which are variously called pufferfish, puffers, balloonfish, blowfish, bubblefish, globefish, swellfish,toadfish, toadies, honey toads, sugar toads, and sea squab.[1] They aremorphologically similar to the closely related porcupinefish, which have large external spines (unlike the thinner, hidden spines of Tetraodontidae, which are only visible when the fish has puffed up). The scientific name refers to the four large teeth, fused into an upper and lower plate, which are used for crushing the shells ofcrustaceans and mollusks, their natural prey.

                      Pufferfish are generally believed to be the second-most poisonous vertebrates in the world, after the golden poison frog. Certain internal organs, such as liver, and sometimes the skin, contain tetrodotoxin and are highly toxic to most animals when eaten; nevertheless, the meat of some species is considered a delicacy in Japan (as 河豚, pronounced as fugu), Korea (as 복 bok or 복어 bogeo ), and China (as 河豚 hétún) when prepared by specially trained chefs who know which part is safe to eat and in what quantity.

                      picture here worth viewing

                      http://www.shellyduffer.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/puffer-fish2.jpg

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      7 February 2015 at 3:41 pm

                      Well spotted Tracey. Section 204 would have applied to the Parker Hales case if it had ever come before a court.

                      Key found out about the case last April, and is lying about it.

                      The porbeagle, like the mako and the great white shark, is a member of the Lamnidae family (mackerel sharks) of warm blooded sharks. They are able to maintain their body temperature around 10 degrees C higher than the surrounding water temperature. This higher core temperature makes it possible for them to swim faster, and maintain higher speeds for longer. This extra speed is a considerable advantage when hunting other fish and sharks as prey.

                    • rawshark-yeshe …
                      7 February 2015 at 4:04 pm

                      If complainants and defendants have automatic right to name suppression only in these specific and exceptional cases ( see below from ODT quoting Judith Collins), then does the name suppression apply to all parties from the first laying of the complaints that demand a police investigation, and prior to any court action ?

                      ” The Criminal Procedure Act 2011, which contains the new legislation, set out a clear set of criteria for the courts to use when deciding whether suppression is appropriate or not.

                      Ms Collins said at the time there is no reason for a defendant to get name suppression simply because they are famous.

                      Automatic name suppression continues to apply to victims of specified sexual offending, defendants in cases of incest or sexual conduct with a dependent family member, and child witnesses.”

                      http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/editorial/329798/dangers-suppression

                    • mickysavage []
                      7 February 2015 at 4:20 pm

                      The CPA only applies once a charge has been laid. Before then there is care not to publish anything on the basis that undue publicity may constitute an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

                      And there is no limitation to what the Minister can be told. He or she is in a completely different position to the public.

                • Paul …
                  7 February 2015 at 2:09 pm

                  Key’s position looks very dodgy.

                • Tracey …
                  7 February 2015 at 2:31 pm

                  You must remember Key lying about receiving a text or texts from Slater only 2 months ago Pete?

                • tracey …
                  7 February 2015 at 4:37 pm

                  the people who told you nat mps have been told to back off slaterising, are they reliable?

              • Alpha z …
                7 February 2015 at 2:27 pm

                ‘The Prime Minster has been forced to correct the record after misleading Parliament. Mr Key earlier claimed he’d had no correspondence with Slater but admitted to receiving “unsolicited texts” ‘.

                key is full of shit. he is a lier.

                • gsays …
                  7 February 2015 at 2:44 pm

                  spot on alpha,
                  i feel the stategy is to wait, ‘cant comment’, stall etc.
                  then when something that takes the publics attention (derrick jensen of endgame fame likes to cite angelina jolie’s intimate tatoos),
                  or when incontrivertable evidence is produced,
                  or after the unneeded buy-election,
                  he will issue a correction and/or push either tolley, collins or another scapegoat under the bus.

                  ‘key is full of shit. he is a lier.’
                  gotta pull you up there alpha, there has to be some room for greed, its not all faeces

        • Tracey 12.3.2.2
          7 February 2015 at 1:52 pm

          I think he just cant understand how Key could lie to him (Slater) of all people… it appears to be a very odd lack of self awareness in Slater that allows him to seem affronted that key would lie to HIM… one thing to lie to the great unwashed, but to SLATER!!!

          Slater also seems to be suggesting he only texts people he trusts… but I am with
          the others below it is , imo, Slater’s way of reminding Key et al that HE holds the TEXT proof of key’s lies and truths.

        • Paul 12.3.2.3
          7 February 2015 at 1:55 pm

          “Here’s the thing…I don’t trust him at all…and I txt him.”

          That has a simple underlying message.
          I keep my texts of people I don’t trust.

          That has significant consequences.

          • whateva next? 12.3.2.3.1
            7 February 2015 at 3:07 pm

            except the recent poll showing the public don’t like contact between Slater/Key this will now translate to the public don’t like Slater, then he can say what he likes and the usual “who cares?” will once again smother any call for integrity in our government.
            Have to agree, Crosby/Textor are truly masters of the dark arts, despicable as they are.

        • Clemgeopin 12.3.2.4
          7 February 2015 at 6:36 pm

          @ Pete George :

          ” I completely agree re the violence aspect of this and think that anyone with a history of violence should be gone from the National Party and I understand that there is someone in a senior role here that should have gone a long time ago”

          Pete George : “I agree. Party President”

          Now you are STATING here that the NATIONAL PARTY PRESIDENT has a HISTORY OF VIOLENCE and should have gone a long time ago. Are you basing your assertion about his ‘history of violence’ on EVIDENCE for that or just making things up?

  13. kiwigunner 13
    7 February 2015 at 12:23 pm

    Sabin’s sign is still up outside his (former) Kerikeri office. It is a great reminder to everyone in this very Blue town of who they voted for a few months ago. Long may Sabin’s smarmy grin keep this message afloat.

  14. Paul 14
    7 February 2015 at 2:05 pm

    Who told Armstrong to write his article today?
    A lot is going on below the surface.

  15. McGrath 15
    7 February 2015 at 3:18 pm

    This is by and large a non-story. Sabin is gone. State Housing Asset sales, rising unemployment, NZ soldiers to battle Islamic State should be the Left’s focus.

    • Tracey 15.1
      7 February 2015 at 3:27 pm

      pop over to whaleoil and sst and herald… they are the ones drip drip dripping the story nit Little. What stand are you taking against state asset sales?

      • McGrath 15.1.1
        7 February 2015 at 3:38 pm

        Its a dumb policy. Despite assurances to the contrary, selling State Homes is an Asset Sale.

        They will probably still get away with it though. Targeting beneficiaries wil be vote-neutral. I doubt any state house tenant is a National voter, and votes are not lost targeting beneficiaries. The risk is backlash from the electorate over a broken promise.

    • freedom 15.2
      7 February 2015 at 3:28 pm

      hi there,
      Are you the same person who used to comment as Richard McGrath?

  16. Murray Simmonds 16
    7 February 2015 at 3:24 pm

    The discussion by John Armstrong ( in the above link) provides a very interesting commentary . . . .and needs to be read carefully.

    However, if you take the view (as I do) that the debate on lying is all just a smokescreen to avoid the spotlight of media and public attention falling on on the REAL issues, then once again you would have to say that the NZ public has once again been mightily conned.

    Not to mention the abuse of democracy by the politically empowered, which is an altogether separate, though clearly related, issue . . .

  17. Nordy 17
    7 February 2015 at 3:49 pm

    Murray S – are you really suggesting that a debate over the trust we can (or can’t as in this case) have in our elected representatives (given the power and privilege we give them – especially when in govt) is not a ‘real’ debate, that it isn’t central to the concept and basis of our representative democracy?

    Yes, the public are being conned (in large part by our so-called media) – about the nature of our democracy and why trust in politicians and what they say and do is central to a healthy, functioning democracy.

    Then again – that presupposes democacry in and of itself is important and worth protecting and enhancing.

  18. phillip ure 18
    7 February 2015 at 4:06 pm

    pg and armstrong..sitting in a tree..

    ..each clutching their key apolo-gee

  19. fisiani 19
    7 February 2015 at 4:37 pm

    This issue will not hurt Honest John. I expect some scum like Winston Peters to use parliamentary privilege to try to tar Honest John with the alleged sins of the ex member for Northland.
    It’s just another example of a Beltway gotcha that fails to resonate with the public.
    Got to try harder guys.

    • tracey 19.1
      7 February 2015 at 4:42 pm

      tell slater and sst. they are the ones playing gotcha.

      the only member here is you.

    • The Al1en 19.2
      7 February 2015 at 4:51 pm

      Yeah, it’s teflon john, not honest john.
      Just because he’s been allowed to get away with it, so far, doesn’t mean he’s not guilty as charged.

      You know when he goes, and he will, it will be in disgrace over something he’s done, said, witnessed and then lied about.
      All those popular pm polls and election victories will mean nothing then. No political legacy, no knighthood, just the lingering taste of regret for getting caught.

      I can wait.

    • linda 19.3
      8 February 2015 at 7:06 pm

      do know what sabin has done you cant get much worse we are not allowed to say but for you to defend jk on this one a shake my head this is a new low even for you fisiani

  20. adam 20
    7 February 2015 at 4:51 pm

    In the interests of odd and weird observations.

    There does seem to be a sexual undertones with the devotion given to Key via the media. And members of the public at large. Even straight guys I talk to, describe him in an sexualised manor – I wonder if this is why he can do no wrong for many, longings and desires.

    • Murray Rawshark 20.1
      7 February 2015 at 9:02 pm

      You might have something there, adam. A lot of Kiwis are pretty out of touch with their own sexuality.

  21. Skinny 21
    7 February 2015 at 7:22 pm

    The Police were investigating Sabin on a serious matter in August, therefore that is when the Minister of Police should have been contacted and briefed.

    If this timeframe wasn’t followed then there should be an inquiry, Mike Bush suspended along with anyone involved in delaying notifying the Minister immediately.

    It was totally unacceptable to have an MP appointed to Chairperson of the Justice/law and order select committee while being investigated by the police, and sitting opposite the Police Commissioner who he is overseeing.

    This is Paramount to asking the fox to guard the hen house. Something that wouldn’t be refused.

    Out the window goes our good rating as one of the least corrupt countries, once the international media hear what’s going on.

    • Skinny 21.1
      7 February 2015 at 7:40 pm

      *tantamount

    • Anne 21.2
      7 February 2015 at 7:43 pm

      Agree Skinny.

      However, I took Commissioner Bush’s comment “the police did not drop the ball” as being a probable hint they did brief the then Minister, Anne Tolley (at the least) in August 2014.

      If that proves to be correct then Key and co. are in big shit. And the ‘pathetic’ John Armstrong will be forced to eat his hat!

    • Atiawa 21.3
      7 February 2015 at 7:46 pm

      Are any of them, including the Prime Minister “fit for purpose?”

    • Treetop 21.4
      8 February 2015 at 11:24 am

      +1

      Bush would have briefed Tolley immediately or during their weekly meeting.

      Did Bush leave a file with Tolley in August 2014 or earlier?
      Probably

      Due to there not being a change in government, probably the file would not be sent back to Bush. If the file was sent back to Bush, Bush would need to reinform the next minister of police because the charges have not been dropped.

      On at least two accounts since August 2014, Key could have been told by his minister of police. I do not think that any minister in government would with hold from the PM that a government MP was facing charges.

      Who appointed Sabin to the law and order select committee?

      If it was the PM (this shows bad judgement) and he was diverting away and stalling.

      If it was the minister of police, this could be seen as political interference.

      I am assuming that Key would have spoken to Sabin.

      I would like to know what Sabin said to Key?

      Sabin or Slater knowing that either or both mentioned the matter to Key and Key denying knowing until early December is probably why Sabin did not go earlier and why Key replies to Slater’s texts and then wipes them.

      I would also like to know if Key has spoken to Bush and if Bush has ever shown Key Sabin’s file?

      Either of these would be political interference by the PM.

      Deny, deny, deny from the PM, I am not going to be fooled.

      • Treetop 21.4.1
        8 February 2015 at 3:57 pm

        Key appointed Sabin to chair the law and order select committee on 22 October 2014.

        I also think there is some sort of triangle going on between Sabin, Slater and Mitchell.

        All three have to stay quiet if there is a suppression order about a court case. Even if there was not a suppression order about a court case, Mitchell would not want to be chucked out of the national party caucus. Sabin is no longer an MP, so he has nothing politically to lose. Slater may be in cahoots with Collins and they may have something planned politically.

        Hurry up question time 2pm on 10 February 2015.

        Please ask the questions on how Bush informed the minister of police?
        When?
        Verbally or a file?
        Did Bush inform both Tolley and Woodhouse?
        Did either minister of police inform the PM?

  22. Neil 22
    7 February 2015 at 11:21 pm

    This is an excellent documentary & is a must watch, its very eye opening.
    The modern day Four Horsemen continue to ride roughshod over the people who can least afford it. Crises are converging when governments, religion and mainstream economists have stalled. 23 international thinkers come together and break their silence about how the world really works and why there is still hope in re-establishing a moral and just society. Four Horsemen is free from mainstream media propaganda, doesn’t bash bankers, criticize politicians or get involved in conspiracy theories. The film ignites the debate about how we usher a new economic paradigm into the world which, globally, would dramatically improve the quality of life for billions.

  23. Barfly 23
    8 February 2015 at 6:39 am

    I think the National Party would like a diversion

    ….Oh look granny Herald to the rescue

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11398185

    • tc 23.1
      8 February 2015 at 10:46 am

      Along with the race baiting dog whistle over Littles comments regarding the treaty, my my the diversionary stories seem to be coming thick and fast.

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