- Date published:
7:23 am, September 19th, 2012 - 60 comments
Categories: accountability, john banks, john key - Tags: keyvasive, lies, truth
Notice how the only people who “believe” John Banks are the ones who haven’t (and won’t) read the police report?
But Prime Minister John Key is clinging onto Mr Banks – a crucial vote that keeps him in power. In fact, Mr Key refuses to even read the 126-page police report on the investigation. …
The Act Party board is standing by leader John Banks, despite damning evidence in a police report into donations from Kim Dotcom and SkyCity in his 2010 mayoral campaign.
Act president Chris Simmons said Mr Banks still had the board’s confidence but did not say whether he hoped Mr Banks would stand again in 2014. He said he had not read the police report…
I wish I had coined the phrase “prohylactic ignorance” – I didn’t it was Gordon Campbell – because it is perfect. The only way Key can even pretend to “believe” Banks is to deliberately avoid the reality that everyone knows exists. It’s as slippery as a snake in wet grass, it’s “Keyvasive”, it’s pathetic. What a farce this government has become.
It’s inconceivable that a PM wouldn’t read a police report on a mattter concerning the stability of his government. It would be counter to strategy and sound information security. If Key hasn’t literally sat down with a cup of tea and read it, then he has certainly been briefed in detail about it’s contents and plans will already be in place to meet the likely Banks outcome. All it takes is one good interviewer to tease out the obvious.
In fact Key is almost certainly lying about NOT having read it … and at the very least is well informed of it’s contents.
David Shearer: What details of the report of the police investigation into John Banks led him to comment “I think he did exactly what he’d always said, which was comply with the law.”?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is my reading of the police report.
31st July 2012
Yep isn’t google a bitch …
well spotted sir!
That still gives Slippery a fair amount of wriggle room.
He can claim that when he said “my reading of it” he meant it in the sense of his understanding of it. There’s no doubt he should now be forced to answer the question though, so that the camera can focus relentlessly on his bored, shifty eyes.
Yeah I thought that too, however, “reading” and “understanding” aren’t special technical terms. It would be a hard sell. They might get a day or two delay out of it. But there’s also one more problem in trying for a word interpretation angle. In the final line, he openly admits that he can override the Cabinet Manual if it suits him; the only “test” of ethics is whether it pleases him or not. An attitude like that doesn’t bother to hide itself behind subtlties.
A PM doing whatever to get what they want, and admitting it, is not new to NZ. During this last term, the idea of extra privileges for the powerful has been pushed out even further and is gaining popular support. I’d be quite interested to see how the National support base have shifted their discretionary limits. Measuring outrage by Lefty standards is not much use in this matter.
Yes, on his dead looking shark eyes.
hang on a minute…… Did he say “that is my reading of the report”? I thought he was adamant that he hadn’t read it?? So he DID read the police report? or not?
Is it just my impression, or has johnny sparkles been telling straight out lies to parliament, the news media, and the country?
Isn’t that grounds for a privileges inquiry….?
my thoughts exactly – misleading the House…
“One good interviewer” – so NOT Shane Taurima then..! Kim Hill? Chris Laidlaw? Where’s David Axel or Ian Johnstone when you need them?
Can’t trust the man at the top.
Can’t trust anyone.
Don’t trust anyone. What the fuck am i doing back in so-called civilization again. What a hole.
“I did not have sexual intercourse ….”
“I have not read………”
But he has no doubt had it read to him or given extracts to read. Then he can truthfully say, “I have not read….”
The National Party’s chief blogger is strangely quiet on this issue – it would seem that he can’t even bring himself to defend the (non)actions of Key.
Let us remember Darren Hughes. Police say “insufficient evidence to prosecute”. Mallard says “he’s cleared his name”. Goff says “he has integrity”. Then there is always Helen Clark.
And there is also the small matter of context. Banks was not an elected offical at the time of the alleged misdemeanours. However, Hughes? Clark?
Labour Party will take the super sized hypocrisy, with a side of dishonesty and a drink of blind stupidity.
Just remember that Key promised higher standards. We are yet to see them.
Thanks Vino. “They did it too sir” is the most cast-iron admission of guilt possible. In this case it also drags your golden boy down into the the same synthetic gutter you created for the examples you give. Well done.
Ak, you mistake me for someone defending Banks. All I am doing is pointing out that the same people lambasting Banks now, are those who have refused, on multiple occasions, to react with the same vigour when it has been one of theirs that stepped out of line.
Except the example you gave was pretty poor, given that Hughes stood down in advance of the police ruling. Wanna try again?
In all the cases you mention the politicians involved were stood down pretty promptly once it was clear that a real investigation was underway.
But it’s nice to see you acknowledge that Key is vigorously defending a Minister whom you implicitly agree is guilty as sin. So are you defending John Key as well?
And are you arguing that the Opposition should remain silent here? That when they see corruption and lies that they should have nothing to say?
VV Would that not be perfectly natural? What’s the problem?
but he was an elected official, a member of govt no less, when he claimed a position that is completely at odds with the findings of the police investigation
remember there were two issues – one of which the evidence shows he is likely guilty of, but cant be prosecuted for due to time limitation
waht the hell happened to higher standards of conduct and the rights sainted “personal responsibility”?
Actually, Key’s problem is not what Banks did when he was a mayoral candidate, IVV. It’s the now apparent fact that Banks (a cabinet Minister) lied to Key (a Prime Minister) earlier this year when he said he didn’t know who the donations were from.
Key promised higher standards from his cabinet, now he is reduced to the Sargeant Shultz defense ( I know nuzzink …nuzzink!).
The main reason why the Police chose not to prosecute was that there was a time limitation that had expired.
But if you want to go ahead and argue that Banks had no idea who those donations came from and that he is perfectly innocent … please go right ahead and make the case for us.
Red, you could try this, straight from the report:
39. Police concluded that this would satisfy the requirement of “False” in respect to The Return, but believe that the circumstances do not reach the Evidential Sufficency Test (assessed against the Prosecution Guidelines) in the Police cannot prove that Mr BANKS knowingly signed The Return in respect to Section 134 (1) of the Act.
41. The allegations do not meet the evidential threshold in respect to Section 134 (a) of the Local Electoral Act 2001.
Yup, that pretty much sums it up. The fact that the statute of limitations excluded the possibility of prosection is also backed up by the fact that that the Police say they couldnt prove that Banks was guilty. I’m sure Red, that you will argue that he is guilty until proven innocent. Since Socialists like their law that way.
So you are arguing that Banks was completely unaware of where those donations came from?
No Red, I am arguing that the Police could not undertake a successful prosecution because there was not enough evidence to prove Banks guilty. Therefore I argue that in the eyes of the law, he is innocent. Action should not be taken against people just because the likes of you, and your politically motivated friends say it should be.
But you failed to answer the question. Do you believe that Banks was unaware of where those two $25k donations came from?
I’m quite aware that Banks has not been prosecuted. But no Minister holds onto his/her warrant until after a successful prosecution has been made… claiming that ‘in the eyes of the law’ he is innocent is a totally untenable defense.
You quote 39 and 41, but not 40.
tell us about 134(2)
I believe I mentioned 40 in closing Pascal. Having read the report, the Police say in 40 that ‘elements” of 134 (2) were met, not saying whether they were referring to 134(2) (a) or (b). Bottom line, they didnt have enough evidence to prove his guilt. It would appear Pascal, that you are another “guilty until proven innocent” man.
Your words, not theirs. My read is that they would have pressed charges to have it tested in court, had it been within the 6 month limit.
You should read 40 again.
they say that “the elements” of 134(2) are met. That would be both of them. They then say that they cannot charge because of the statute of limitations.
The bottom line is that there is plenty of evidence that Banks has lied to the public and the PM about the extent of his dealings with Dot Com, and that the return was false, and that the PM is actively trying to avoid getting confirmation of those things.
Banks was a candidate and is required to abide by electoral law. I think you have been drinking from that cup of stuidity that you so quickly accused others of sipping.
I remember you Craig, from a good long time ago, and you made baseless, factually incorrect statements even then, and I see nothing has changed. The only person drinking from a cup of stupidity is you. Read my posts. The police said the allegations do not meet the evidentiary threshold, Banks cannot be proven guilty and therefore he is innocent in law. Therefore he abided by Electoral Law.
Wow, the police NEVER made that comment about the evidentiary threshold apart for one small part of the potential complaint. Seems you are the one making baseless, factually incorrect statements now mate.
read the report Viper. Its at 41, just to help you. Wow.
Technicalities mate. Looks like the only reason Banks escaped 134(2) is the statute of limitations. Do you agree?
Banks is a bad liar, almost as bad as Key. He knew where those donations came from, as surely as he knows which side of the bed he rolls out of in the morning.
He’s stopped talking about 134(2) after he read section 40 of the police report wrong and completely misrepresented it. To be charitable about it.
“The police said the allegations do not meet the evidentiary threshold, Banks cannot be proven guilty and therefore he is innocent in law. Therefore he abided by Electoral Law.”
The last sentence has no relationship to the first. Banks did not abide by electoral law. In fact, he deliberately broke electoral law by arranging ‘anonymous’ donations from known donors. The sad fact that he cannot be prosecuted does not change what he did or its illegality.
Please note that every other candidate in the council elections that year managed to get it right, from the humblest community board applicant right up to the mayors of every other city and district in the country. But then, those candidates weren’t trying to rort the system.
How do you know Te Reo? Did Len Browns donations for the Mayoralty campaign come from a Trust? And if so, how do you know anything about it?
Nice attempt at diversion. The evidence shows that John Banks broke the law. He escapes through the statute of limitations. There’s no way to spin that or get people to believe your silly narrative. If you’ve got evidence that there are problems with other candidates’ returns then present it.
This particular episode will keep on giving and giving, since, quite apart from his manifest criminality, Banks lied to the public too, repeatedly and brazenly, again as evidenced by the police report.
Oh, and the longer the shifty, slippery, bored Prime Minister lets it drag on, the more damage the National Party will sustain 😀
[lprent: You are getting close to the edge of what is acceptable with that “manifest criminality” comment because you are stating it as being an objective fact rather than an opinion. I realize what the police report said about the limitation period. However the police do not determine criminality (regardless how the individual police sometimes operate). That is the role of the courts. A little more care please. ]
Kotahi, hardly a diversion, since Te Reo claimed “every other candidate”. I asked him how he knew. And then asked another question. At no time did I say I had a problem with any other candidates return, though I think you will find that it is a fact that Len Brown ran $499K of his $582K of donations for the 2010 Mayoralty through a trust. Oh, you can read it here:
IVV: Yawn. Who was it again who escaped prosecution because the statute of limitations applied? That’s right it was John Banks. What are people discussing? That’s right it’s John Banks, oh, and how he taints the National Party with every day his Ministerial warrant continues.
So witter on about Len Brown, the Mayor of Auckland, all you like – we’re talking about John Banks, the dodgiest MP Epsom has ever elected, and John Key, the bored and compromised Prime Minister.
LPrent: right you are guvnor.
think you will find that it is a fact that Len Brown ran $499K of his $582K of donations for the 2010 Mayoralty through a trust.
The money went through a trust, but there is nothing to suggest that the identity of the donors was known by Len Brown, as your phrasing would imply.
He was of course the leading candidate for the Mayor of Auckland-on the citizens and ratepayers ticket,or whatever.
The extraordinary thing about John, is why was he selected as a Nat canditdate.Why was he selected as an Act Candidate for NZ’s second richest seat. How could somebody who failed UE three times become Mayor of Auckland and be reselected as a Candidate.
What on earth are his talents.He appears to have none,but arrogance, agression and lip and the fact for some inconcievable reason Sue Wood, Matthew Hooton etc smiled nicely on him.Why would the wet,right nats support a distant relation of Alan McCready ( an inexplicable promotion to the Marshall cabinet in 72). No 20 undoubtedly.
Of course apparently John ran some lamb chop and red wine joints that employed a lot of waiters in the 1970’s. How much whisky and gin did Muldoon and his fellow racehorse owner Dud Mouldey sink after the laugh of making that young chubby guy John, the noted police reject an MP for the red neck and unenlightened borough of Whangarei.
What on earth is the interest of Dot Com and his fifth size bead (‘the most beautful women, I have seen ‘)- John Banks MP for Remmers- noted connesueir of Russian dolls)- in this dull ,unintersting and very ugly Auckland MP.Why would he give him ten cents , let alone $50,000.
I mean Eccelstone and Blair were both intelligent right wingers with attractive wives and their own children and a mutual interest in the Middle East and German politics. What an earth was the mutual interest of dot.com and John B. Champers,Matchbox 20,Pink Cangles, Political favours,payoffs for easing copyright and licensing laws, residency certificates, citizenship support letters.The Nick Smith type letter of support beyond the call of duty for a former friend and partier.
What on earth do John and his party mates,discuss at the Act Party booze ups. There must be cake of course. Read the Basset review of the Goldsmith bio of JB.
As Mr Key enjoys semantics so much, let’s change the question
‘To the PM, Has anyone read the Police report to you?’
“Eyes have they, and yet they see not”. “Ears have they they and yet they hear not”.
Was a flying visit earler and i simply missed ianmac’s comment, sorry ianmac
It may be wishful thinking but the title of this Post keeps giving me a mental image of Johnny with a ‘johnny’ stretched over his head.
Did anyone mention David Garrett and offences committed while not a MP?
and rodney hide’s crime against against fashion
The Bank’s affair has not touched the opinion polls.
To the MSM it is a try again at their “Ambrose” moment when one of their precious accidentally left a recorder on at a ptrivate conversation, and Key took exception (to an unexceptional conversation according to the Winston release) but the “Ambrose” was one of them, and they won’t forget it – despite “Ambrose” writing a letter of apology to Key, which was
Subject getting a bore with nothing better to do in Parliament, which is getting close to year end wrap up and long holiday in Hawaii.
There are pressing points to be made to new social legislation – let the oppositions get on with that and stop buggering around with Banks, which is water off a duck’s back.
You really are a
stupidpolitically unaware dork. That is probably because no polls have been taken through the period of maximum damage and then published.
The OIA’s came back on about September 12th and this particular part of the saga with some definitive information only started then. Before that, it was largely supposition. After that then there has been a steadily rising firestorm (which I anticipate will continue for quite some time based on people expressing their indignation to me (usually they avoid the politically aware)).
So there have been no polls published covering the last 7 days.
But any way Act can’t get much lower than they already are. The story over this week has been about how Key has been too gutless to sack Banks for his perfidy of being economical with the truth with the public. Typically before this kind of screwup penetrates the polls jumping from the idiot politician to the person protecting them, it usually takes between 4 and 8 weeks. I suspect I’m going to enjoy looking at the Morgan polls towards the end of next month.
This one has considerable traction…
Why are you looking forward to the next round of polls?
If I recall correctly on numerous occaissions you have waxed lyrical about their lack of importance and how they dont matter or is that just when Labour is getting its nose rubbed in the dirt.
Yes and no. If people are trying to divine the shape of a government from the numbers in a poll, then polls are about as useful as reading sheeps entrails to predict climate. The systematic sampling errors in how they pull their samples makes a mockery of the calculation or margins of error when looking at the voting populations.
What they are measuring is the voting intentions of the population of people who have a landline, a listed phone number, landlines, and who certain enough of their voting intentions to be willing to answer. In other words an audience that is more affluent than the voting population (they have a landline), more conservative than the voting population (they listed their landline despite the telemarketers and they didn’t ignore calls from people with no caller id), older than the voting population (they have a listed landline and were at home to answer the phone), etc. By any stretch of statistics the population of who phone pollsters can get at is distinctly different to the voting population these days.
BTW: For all of the distraction waffle I have seen about automated dialers and the like for doing polls, I haven’t seen any evidence that anyone with an unlisted phone number gets called for political polls. I certainly haven’t in a few decades of being unlisted, and nor has a sufficient sample of others I’ve asked. And of course trying to find someone under 30 with a listed landline in urban areas these days is like finding a dodo. Besides which, it will be cheaper to either scan the whitepages or buy a list from them than to auto-dial a analogue circuit..
However I have also always said that the longer term trends in polls are useful and important. They won’t tell you the shape of election result. They will indicate shifts in voters opinions. That’s why whenever you see me looking at polls I look at the long-term charts like the Morgan poll produces. Which is why I saying that we’d have to wait for a number of the same poll to be able to see any trend (you need more than one data point to look for trends)…. The Morgan poll is published about every two weeks for the about the two weeks prior.
Indeed, ’tis the trends that matter, KK.
But trends end with the last observation.
As an exercise, look at the current morgan polls. Now imagine the short trend if nat go up say 1.5% (i.e. margin of error). Now down 1.5%. What does that do to the trend?
Much of the time when tories post links to the polls they gloat about e.g. the feb22-mar11 poll, with a last minute upswing on a down trend. So they get called on their stupidity.
Basically, since the election nat have been static/leaking support slightly, while their support parties have remained pretty constant (including Maori party). Oh, and according to RM the nats lost 1 or 2% in the last week of the election campaign. If that’s survey bias rather than a real drop, all this year the nats would have had great difficulty remaining in govt in the event of a snap election. Contrast that with the trend from the previous election.
Signed this yet folks?
Good to see the occasional NZ issue included in avaaz. Done.