Six years jail for Field

Written By: - Date published: 2:20 pm, October 6th, 2009 - 119 comments
Categories: corruption, crime - Tags: ,

Taito Philip Field has been sentenced to six years jail for bribery and corruption.

Field is a prime example of the ability of power to corrupt. He let down all those who put their trust in him – his community, his former party, and the voters.

We are fortunate that in New Zealand corruption by politicians is not tolerated. This sentence will be a healthy reminder of that for any others who are tempted to exploit the trust placed in them by the public for their personal gain.

119 comments on “Six years jail for Field ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. vidiot 1
    6 October 2009 at 2:28 pm

    So will Helen still support him now ?

    • Clarke 1.1
      6 October 2009 at 2:34 pm

      You do recall Helen firing him, don’t you?

      P.S. Great pseudonym – only you hit the “v” key before typing the rest of your name …

      • vidiot 1.1.1
        6 October 2009 at 2:37 pm

        Sorry are you trying to re-write history ? She never fired him, she stood him down from a couple of his responsibilities. If she had of fired him, he wouldn’t of been a Labour MP at the 2005 election.

        • vidiot 1.1.1.1
          6 October 2009 at 2:40 pm

          http://www.nzherald.co.nz/taito-phillip-field-case/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501207&objectid=10399159&pnum=0

          “Police announced yesterday that they would conduct a formal investigation, saying it was a result of issues raised during the inquiry by Noel Ingram, QC.

          It came a day after the Mangere MP ignored an invitation from Prime Minister Helen Clark to resign and instead decided to stay and defend himself.

          Helen Clark, who had said she was powerless to take further action, immediately stood him down from all duties – including electorate ones – for the length of the investigation. Other MPs will cover his work and his vote will still be cast for Labour by its whips.

          The police intervention was a huge relief for Labour, which has been unable to shake off either Mr Field or the claims being made against him. Now he and questions on the issue can be pushed to the side for the duration of the police inquiry, without his valuable vote being put at risk.”

        • HitchensFan 1.1.1.2
          6 October 2009 at 2:43 pm

          What is it with you Nat apologists and your inability to use the English Language??? Mind you, you are led from the top in that regard.
          “of” is a preposition, not a verb. And yes, lefties DO concern themselves with such things because we are educated and we THINK.
          Bring on the abuse in response…

          • toad 1.1.1.2.1
            6 October 2009 at 5:05 pm

            The “English Language”?

            As in every word starting with “D” has to have one before or after it that alliterates.

            As in “Double Dipton”

          • Gordon Shumway 1.1.1.2.2
            6 October 2009 at 6:33 pm

            OK I’ll bite.

            “Language” doesn’t need a capital “L” and only one question mark will do fine.

            • kiwiteen123 1.1.1.2.2.1
              7 October 2009 at 8:06 pm

              Gordon,
              By “will do fine” I presume you mean will be OK, last time I checked that “fine” was not a verb.
              Perhaps this comment could be divided into two sentences so as to distinguish two different ideas. Were you not paying attention in Year One?

            • Daveosaurus 1.1.1.2.2.2
              7 October 2009 at 9:07 pm

              “Fine” doesn’t need to be a verb, because “do” is a verb.

              Gordon should probably have used an adverb instead of an adjective, but at least his comment was clear and understandable. Yours fails to meet that standard.

            • kiwiteen123 1.1.1.2.2.3
              8 October 2009 at 8:44 pm

              Dave,
              I agree! I would not have picked up on his minor mistake, if he hadn’t picked up Toad’s! How are mine not clear or understandable? Oh and since you criticised me: I think you mean “your’s” not “yours”.

              IrishBill: at the risk of sounding like one of the grammar pedants that occasionally dwell here I feel obliged to point out that it is never correct to put a possessive apostrophe in “yours” as “your” already indicates possession. I’m not usually particular about punctuation but this one really grates.

        • Clarke 1.1.1.3
          6 October 2009 at 2:52 pm

          Yes, you’re correct – my bad. She only convened the independent Ingram enquiry, dumped him out of Cabinet, stood him down from all responsibilities including electorate ones, kicked him out of the Labour Party and stood a strong candidate against him at the last election. But she didn’t actually fire him. I stand corrected.

          • vidiot 1.1.1.3.1
            6 October 2009 at 3:04 pm

            Independent my bottom – Don’t forget the terms of reference she set for the inquiry. Might as well of stuck a paper bag over the guys head and said smell my cheese.

            • HitchensFan 1.1.1.3.1.1
              6 October 2009 at 3:14 pm

              GAH! there it is again. That horrible little “of”! It’s “have” not “of”!!!!!!!!!!!
              Sigh. Rant over.

            • Clarke 1.1.1.3.1.2
              6 October 2009 at 4:32 pm

              Independent my bottom

              You’re nitpicking – she still convened the enquiry, dumped him out of Cabinet, stood him down from all responsibilities including electorate ones, kicked him out of the Labour Party and stood a strong candidate against him at the last election. And it’s the end result that counts – a corrupt MP is now behind bars. What more can you reasonably ask for?

            • mickysavage 1.1.1.3.1.3
              6 October 2009 at 6:00 pm

              The guy is a QC and an Auckland Grammar old boy who is still involved in the school. Obviously a hard left communist.

          • Tim Ellis 1.1.1.3.2
            6 October 2009 at 3:14 pm

            Clarke I seem to remember that following the Ingram inquiry Ms Clarke said that no further inquiries were necessary, and then defended Mr Field.

            • snoozer 1.1.1.3.2.1
              6 October 2009 at 3:17 pm

              got the quotes, Tim? the full ones, not the David Farrar edited ones

            • Armchair Critic 1.1.1.3.2.2
              6 October 2009 at 3:34 pm

              I have a quote for you, snoozer, from a PM with a minister who acted immorally and possibly illegally – “I’m relaxed about it”.
              Forgotten their name, though I’m pretty sure it wasn’t HC.

            • Clarke 1.1.1.3.2.3
              6 October 2009 at 4:30 pm

              In hindsight, you’re right – it’s just that no-one has the luxury of hindsight at the time. At the time, Field said he wasn’t the corrupt ratbag he’s subsequently proven to be, and Helen’s only choice was to take him at his word or call him a liar.

              All PMs have this conundrum when an MP tells porkies. They may suspect dirty dealings, but until they have something concrete to hang their hats on, it’s simply a judgement call – exactly the same as Key has exercised with Double Dipton and Richard Worth. Sometimes they’ll get it right, sometimes they’ll get it wrong; in this case, however, the right outcome has been achieved and a corrupt MP is behind bars.

              And given that we are (largely) a corruption-free society, I look forward to the rule of law also prevailing in Richard Worth’s case.

            • Tim Ellis 1.1.1.3.2.4
              6 October 2009 at 6:11 pm

              Interesting points Clarke, except Ms Clark said there was no need for further inquiries into Mr Field, after the Ingram Inquiry reported that Mr Field had been uncooperative towards the inquiry and that his evidence was suspicious.

            • Clarke 1.1.1.3.2.5
              6 October 2009 at 8:45 pm

              Tim – so in your view should PMs regularly over-rule the findings of independent QCs?

      • starboard 1.1.2
        7 October 2009 at 11:13 am

        …”but he was only guilty of helping people”..ppfftt..tui billboard…

  2. NeillR 2
    6 October 2009 at 2:29 pm

    Support him? She should be in there with him.

    • Clarke 2.1
      6 October 2009 at 2:37 pm

      How is the Police investigation into Richard Worth going, by the way?

      • kiwiteen123 2.1.1
        7 October 2009 at 8:10 pm

        Interesting question. I too want to know the answer to the question however, John Key had the guts to tell him to go while Helen Clark hid and left him on his own.

  3. toad 3
    6 October 2009 at 2:36 pm

    Good job.

    When I first knew Field he was a hard working unionist fighting for the wages and conditions of some of the lowest paid workers. Somehow the power all went to his head, and he ended up using it to feather his own nest instead of advancing the interests of those he was elected to represent.

    Traitor!

    Field 6, English ?

  4. grumpy 4
    6 October 2009 at 3:00 pm

    It’s a poor show when a hard working MP is jailed for trying to help his constituents.

  5. Santi 5
    6 October 2009 at 3:09 pm

    The guilty conscience of the socialist Labour Party trying to rewrite history (unsuccessfully).
    Clark, the former leader, is as guilty as Field for abetting his corrupt exploitation of poor people.

    A crook protected another crook until the time came to let the hapless MP go (and she flew to New York).

    • HitchensFan 5.1
      6 October 2009 at 3:15 pm

      You just delude yourself in that way and we’ll just all cheerfully wait for the AG’s report on Double Dipton…(if you want to speak about fraud and corruption)

      • Tim Ellis 5.1.1
        6 October 2009 at 4:28 pm

        I’d wait until the AG’s report if I were you Mr Fan.

        If the AG’s report exonerates Mr English, will you retract your claims that he is corrupt?

        • HitchensFan 5.1.1.1
          6 October 2009 at 4:29 pm

          Nope. You threatening people again? Sad……

          • Tim Ellis 5.1.1.1.1
            6 October 2009 at 5:17 pm

            No but you’ve shown yourself up to be a hypocrite HF, if you are suggesting others to wait for the AG’s report yet won’t accept its outcome if it doesn’t go your way.

          • kiwiteen123 5.1.1.1.2
            7 October 2009 at 8:14 pm

            Firstly, that is not a threat. Secondly, why not? If you make a comment and its later found that it was a falsity, don’t you think it is right to apologise? The Helen Clark approach doesn’t work, she got voted out because the public was sick of your ways. I presume if it was discovered that a comment John Key made was wrong you wouldn’t expect him to apologise?

  6. Brett Dale 6
    6 October 2009 at 3:37 pm

    Glad this criminal is going to jail.

    The real disgusting thing is, he has shown no remorse at all for ripping off vulnerable people.

    • HitchensFan 6.1
      6 October 2009 at 3:40 pm

      Sounds familiar huh? Bit like Double Dipton and his lack of remorse for ripping off the taxpayers. “Oooh feel sorry for me, I want to keep my family together….”

      • Geek 6.1.1
        6 October 2009 at 3:56 pm

        Wow comparing a convicted criminal to someone who hasn’t even had a criminal charge yet.

        How does the saying go? “Desperation is a stinky cologne”.

        • HitchensFan 6.1.1.1
          6 October 2009 at 4:28 pm

          Nope, not desperate at all. Just sitting back and enjoying the show and looking forward to a lot more before 2011. I mean, you can’t have a bunch like that in Cabinet and not expect there to be casualties. They’re doing pretty well for a few months on the job. Looking forward to the Privacy Commissioner’s report on that thicko Bennett as well. Should all be fun.

          • kiwiteen123 6.1.1.1.1
            7 October 2009 at 8:16 pm

            “a bunch like this”?! So you support the appointments by Ms. Clark on racist or gender grounds. Finally a bunch of people who aren’t just teachers, dentists, unionists and career politicians. Just as fun as the Phillip Field trial?

        • travellerev 6.1.1.2
          7 October 2009 at 8:38 pm

          I don’t normally resort to just calling names but excuse me: It all starts with recognising a crime and finally getting convicted. Billyboy’s shit may need a long time to go yet but he stinks to high heaven, you absolute and utter wanker

  7. Tanya 7
    6 October 2009 at 3:43 pm

    This seems too harsh, to me. As a comparison, the guy who recently was in court over the manslaughter of an innocent road rage victim, only received a paltry three years, and will probably be out in half that time. Field was trying to help people, at least.

    • The Voice of Reason 7.1
      6 October 2009 at 4:35 pm

      It’s not a good comparison, Tanya. Its physical violence vs fraud and corruption. Different crimes, different sentencing criteria.

      The manslaughter sentence seems to be remarkably low and most comments I read or heard about it said so at the time. Field’s crimes and sentences needs to be looked at in comparison to other frauds. His corruption as a politician cannot be compared with anyone else’s as he is the first to be convicted for that particular crime.

      I think the sentences, which are to be served seperately, not added together so that only the longer one is actually served, seem about right. Field may not have hit anyone, but he used the advantages of his wealth and office to financially abuse vulnerable workers to his own financial advantage.

      Too often white collar crime is not punished properly and, while the makeup of the judiciary is changing, it was often white men in suits passing judgement on other white men in suits, with nominal sentences in low security environments if jail simply could not be avoided.

      If this sentence sends a chill up the spine of Bill English or any of the other rorters, then justice has been well served.

  8. Sean 8
    6 October 2009 at 4:09 pm

    Yea the sentence does seem to be on the harsh side, given the sentence you cite Tanya. I don’t understand what it is about the beehive that turns some politicians into such idiots. Perhaps it is because their performance reviews only come around every 4 years.

  9. randal 9
    6 October 2009 at 4:21 pm

    6 years is a bit harsh. about what key should get for speeding in Samoa. seems like he is laways on the way to a shower. cleanliness issues perhaps or lady macbeth syndrome?

    • HitchensFan 9.1
      6 October 2009 at 4:25 pm

      man I am cracking up at that! Always on the way to a shower! hahahaha. thanks randal, you made my day…

      • cracked 9.1.1
        6 October 2009 at 4:37 pm

        Strange that some people can’t bring themselves to call a crook a crook just because they’re from their team, Field behaved disgracefully as did certain parts of the Labour party by trying to shield him.

        Bit like the people saying that English isn’t gorging on the public teat and Kiwibloggers saying it’s no problem. Until the political hacks the general public and parliamentarians say enough is enough and hold all politicians to a far higher standard of behaviour we can probably look forward to more criminal behaviour, rorting and buffoonery from the elected representatives.

        • snoozer 9.1.1.1
          6 October 2009 at 5:16 pm

          who’s defending Field? Not the post, not the lefties in the thread

          • cracked 9.1.1.1.1
            6 October 2009 at 5:35 pm

            Snoozer

            “Field behaved disgracefully as did certain parts of the Labour party by trying to shield him.”

            I think you’ll find that a number of people will still fight tooth and nail against Labour having any culpability for defending Field and loading the terms of reference in relation to the Ingram inquiry……….. politicans will declare their undying love for a fresh turd if it’s in their political interest.

  10. HitchensFan 10
    6 October 2009 at 4:40 pm

    If you’re referring to me, cracked, I certainly am not afraid to say I think Field is a crook. Just can’t wait for the rest of ’em to be outed as well.
    I agree with you about Kiwiblog.
    And I’m no fan of Field and his obsessively Christian, homophobic. pro-smacking, points of view…..

  11. Tanya 11
    6 October 2009 at 4:55 pm

    And good on Field for daring to be Christian (unusual for the Left), to side with the majority view of voters on the smacking issue and I think it is a good comparison. Field caused the death of no one and gets six years, the convicted road rage man lost his temper and as a consequence, an elderly gentleman lost his life. I hope Field gets out after two years, or less.

  12. Adders 12
    6 October 2009 at 5:37 pm

    Daring to be Christian and, oh—off to jail the religious hypocrite goes.

  13. Tom 13
    6 October 2009 at 5:45 pm

    Had Taito beaten the tilers to death, like Bio O’Brien did the guy who scratched his Beemer, he may have only gotten 3 years.

    • Draco T Bastard 13.1
      6 October 2009 at 6:33 pm

      Taito is a title similar to Sir so, in leaving off the name, you fail to enunciate who you’re talking about.

      • toad 13.1.1
        6 October 2009 at 6:39 pm

        Yes, it is, Draco. It will be interesting to see if the title is repudiated.

        It did happen to former Cook Islands Prime Minsiter (Sir- he was subsequently stripped of the tile) Albert Henry after he was found to have acted corruptly.

    • Daveosaurus 13.2
      6 October 2009 at 9:34 pm

      Or he could have hunted down and killed a defenceless teenager, and only got three and a quarter years.

  14. Rex Widerstrom 14
    6 October 2009 at 6:03 pm

    Leaving aside the “what did she know and when did she know it” debate over Clark (I hope Field spends his jail time writing an autobiography, though) the response from the present Labour “leadership” is pathetic.

    This is politics, and politics is about perception. Someone should remind Annette King that assuming the position of an ostrich leaves your arse exposed.

    If you made an error of judgment, if the person in whom you initially put your faith changed over time (as Toad alludes to above) then say so. Accept some of the blame for standing by them for too long… we’ve all had a mate who went off the rails but who we were reluctant to kick to the curb because we were loyal.

    Been there, done that. The percentage of people who think you were a dick for believing in him in the first place turns out to be, thankfully, much smaller than those who understand your position.

    But keep schtum and you’re implying you were somehow right. And that’s perceived as arrogance.

    • Tim Ellis 14.1
      6 October 2009 at 6:35 pm

      Those are very fair points Mr Widerstrom. Trying to rewrite history and saying that your party didn’t protect Mr Field and got rid of him at the earliest opportunity as Eddie has done is just as objectionable in my view.

      IrishBill: Eddie did no such thing. I’ve tired of your willful misrepresentation of our authors. Take a week off.

      • Zaphod Beeblebrox 14.1.1
        6 October 2009 at 6:55 pm

        Hey guys, get over it, what has happened has happened and will argued about by historians for years- you can’t take back the last nine years of Labour Government any more than you can change what happened during the Lange/Douglas years. Soon nobody will remember much about Field, except he was the first MP to be convicted- the caravan will move on.

        Truth is we now have a National/ACT/Maori Party/UF government- what is your opinion of them? what are the implications of their actions? What are they doing about the recession? Did you know the Australian Reserve bank raised interest rates today becuase they described their economy as a run away train next year. It would be much more interesting if you were to critique current policy not all the stuff from the past (as interesting as it might be to nostalgic bloggers).

        If you want to discuss what happened four years ago, I would suggest you find a good political historical blog and argue about it there.

        • Rex Widerstrom 14.1.1.1
          6 October 2009 at 7:36 pm

          1. Those who do not learn from history, etc.
          2. Many of the participants in this affair remain as MPs today, in senior roles. Thus it goes to character.
          3. The Standard is built on political history (it’s version 2.0, remember).
          4. That’s a novel defence. Perhaps field should have tried telling the judge “it’s all ancient history”.

          As to your other points, in turn:
          – A mixture of intelligent admirable people doing an excellent job mixed with some total knobheads making a mess of all they touch, and a majority of pretty uninspiring dullards. Oh, and a few crooks for good measure. Much like the last lot, and the lot before that, and… but there we go looking at history again. Only the proportions change.
          – Yes I did and I happen to think they’re wrong. They’re projecting forward based on the last few months, which are a direct result of China’s stimulus and it’s effect on WA and, to a lesser extent, Queensland. To assume that China’s stimulus won’t end is, IMHO, stupid.

          And my apologies to everyone else for going off topic, which is pretty much the path you hoped you could lead us down, Mr Beeblebrox. I trust everyone else will concentrate on the facts:

          1. Field is a crook.
          2. Labour’s handling of his situation at the time is open to criticism.
          3. It’s handling of his eventual disposition by the courts is unwise and inept (though that one’s more of an opinion).

          • Zaphod Beeblebrox 14.1.1.1.1
            6 October 2009 at 8:48 pm

            Don’t argue with you on Points 1,2 and 3. Its good that our system does not tolerate bad behaviour, hopefully this will be a one off.

            That said, I would like people to give their own opinions, not just the political slogans that sites like these tend to attract. It seems that every discussion ends in everyone taking diametrically opposed views of what did and didn’t happen at the same time hurling invective at and ascribing motives of individuals they probably have never met.

            • Daveski 14.1.1.1.1.1
              6 October 2009 at 10:05 pm

              Good points and I admit to the same.

              Sadly, TE’s ban verges on the same territory.

              [lprent: TE has been behaving badly and pushing the boundaries on this site for quite a while. As you’re aware the moderators look at behavior patterns rather than language

              He has been attacking the authors by misrepresenting what they have said. That is defined as being a self-martyrdom offense in the policy. It is a pain in the arse to keep having to point this out, and he doesn’t change his behaviour. We’ve given him enough warnings about it.

              He has also been attempting to frame the debate in the comments sections by saying what is permissible and what is not – usually because people have made a pointed comment about something he has said with an opinion on his motivations. Rather than deal with the point, TE has preferred to attack the commentator by telling them how they should act. That annoys me because I wind up having to stomp out the stupid little flames that causes and only the moderators have any authority about behaviour.

              If Irish hadn’t done it, then it is likely that I would have. He is costing me too much time and effort during moderation sweeps. ]

            • felix 14.1.1.1.1.2
              6 October 2009 at 10:40 pm

              T.E. has been abusing authors and commenters alike in his “I’m not using rude words so I’m not being rude” style for far too long. He’s lucky not to be banned for life.

      • felix 14.1.2
        6 October 2009 at 11:49 pm

        Oh look, bans don’t apply to Ellis-in-Wonderland because he’s special – here on special party business, you understand.

        Hey Tim, I support your rebel stand. Keep posting. Show ’em who’s boss.

        • Pat 14.1.2.1
          7 October 2009 at 10:33 am

          I would like to say that the reasons given for T.E’s banning seem nonsensical. To my knowledge he has never abused anyone, or indulged in ad homs, and 99% of the time plays the ball and not the man. Sure his opinions are usually contrary to the authors, but so what?

          Compared to the constant personal invective name-calling that T.E. receives from other posters, then his ban seems more like a suppression of a dissenting opinion. In my view his great crime of starting flame wars can be equally placed at the feet of some others who seem to have taken it upon themselves to counter T.E. every time he posts, usually with an ad hom thrown in for good measure.

          This is either a serious political blog or a Labour fan club.

          In the famous words of Monty Python “Welease Wodney!” (or in this case, Free Tim!)

          [lprent: It is a blog site read the about to find out what we want it to be. Since we make the effort of running this site, we make the rules, not some random commentator like you. Read the policy for how we want to run it.

          Generally we’re moderately uninterested in what happens in the comments. However we are sensitive about people attempting to discourage our writers from writing. Reading comment streams that are just too turgid to read (generally known as flamewars) just pisses us off. Both degenerate sites to something like the sewer, which is a good example of the lack of management that made usenet go from being useful to being a bore.

          We look at behavior in the comments area – not what language is used. So if behaviour slides off into an incipient flamewar, we’ll stomp on it. If the comments seem pointless, we’ll stomp on it. If people try and tell us what to do with our site or how people should act in the comments then we’ll stomp on it. The latter is what got TE banned.

          I will be happy to demonstrate it again in a special demonstration especially for you… Except I’d make it a lot longer and harsher because I really can’t be bothered arguing about our control of the site. It is simpler to demonstrate a lot of site control.

          BTW: The thing that tends to unite most of the authors here (and a lot of the commentators) is the contempt that they feel for the ridiculously stupid government from the NACT’s. The uniting principle definitely isn’t the Labour party. But I guess that is too subtle for you to understand. ]

          • cracked 14.1.2.1.1
            7 October 2009 at 10:38 am

            “This is either a serious political blog or a Labour fan club.”

            More likely a cunning psych experiment.

            Also don’t discount the possibility that Tim is a persona created to get a rise from the posters/commenters and his banning is a badge of honour.

          • Trevor Mallard 14.1.2.1.2
            7 October 2009 at 3:45 pm

            Your decision is a good one but I don’t thank you for it – just more time moderating on Red Alert.

          • travellerev 14.1.2.1.3
            7 October 2009 at 8:49 pm

            Very interesting.

            Captcha: corrupting. And no that is no insinuation. LOL

          • felix 14.1.2.1.4
            7 October 2009 at 10:41 pm

            To my knowledge he has never abused anyone, or indulged in ad homs, and 99% of the time plays the ball and not the man.

            That’s laughable. Timmy’s just reasonably adept at using polite language to say nasty things.

            Read a little closer next time.

  15. mike 15
    6 October 2009 at 8:16 pm

    “We are fortunate that in New Zealand corruption by politicians is not tolerated”

    But it was tolerated by Helen Clarks labour when she stated he was only guilty of trying to help people. Funny how power can corrupt different people in different ways…

    • Clarke 15.1
      6 October 2009 at 8:54 pm

      But it was tolerated by Helen Clarks labour when she stated he was only guilty of trying to help people.

      Just to be obvious on this one – if the Clark government had been “tolerant” of corruption then the Ingram enquiry would never have been convened in the first place. Helen didn’t turn a blind eye; she simply reacted too slowly and gave Field too much rope with which to hang himself.

      Largely, I agree with Rex. Labour should admit the point that they should have thrown Field to the wolves much sooner; but having said that, justice has now been served.

      • mike 15.1.1
        6 October 2009 at 9:17 pm

        We both know the Ingram Inquiry had terms of reference set so narrow it was never going to uncover the truth – Hels planned it that way and almost got away with it

    • mickysavage 15.2
      6 October 2009 at 9:01 pm

      From now on leaders of each major political party ought to rush to destroy the careers of any of their MPs against who allegations are made. No loyalty should be shown. This should be done before any inquiry is complete.

      What are the chances of this happening?

      Zaphod has a good point.

      As bad as Field’s actions were ultimately shown to be we should be discussing the important issues like climate change, unemployment, workers rights, education, night schools, protection for trees, aid for the Pacific …

  16. mickysavage 16
    6 October 2009 at 9:24 pm

    An interesting comparison in this matter is the Field / Worth treatment.

    Clark is decried by wingnuts for being part of the conspiracy.

    Key is decried by lefties for not intervening when it was clear that Worth was out of control.

    Which response is more measured?

  17. Westminster 17
    6 October 2009 at 10:03 pm

    Oh, the spin from the Kiwiblog Right! Precious. It’s funny, but most Labour people had long ago written this guy off and were glad to see the back of him. Clark acted reasonably with Field but perhaps a little too slowly for the public’s consumption. Key found out with Worth that trying to be fair and reasonable might be good from a due process perspective but it’s worth bupkis to voters.

    Obviously the meme that’s being peddled tonight by the usual troll chorus is that Clark shielded Field. It’s nonsense, of course – but you know – keep it up. As for the Dodgy Double Dipping Douchebag from Dipton – he deserves all the opprobrium he gets.

    The Kiwiblog Right might attempt to throw up dust about Labour or the Greens and their spending – they might even drag Field into their arguments to demonstrate English’s relative innocence in all this. But the public of NZ see this double dipping for what it is: self-serving dodginess. The Dodgy Double Dipping Douchebag needs to know that for most people his antics look, smell, feel and taste crooked. Just like I think they (the public) long ago realised Field was as bent as a seven bob note.

  18. illuminatedtiger 18
    6 October 2009 at 10:25 pm

    I see the ninth floor spin machine is in full swing tonight.

  19. RedLogix 19
    6 October 2009 at 11:12 pm

    Six years for this?

    I’ve been around long enough to know that the system always gives the brown skinned ones an extra kicking when they are down.

    This sentence is a shameful, racist fuckup. One day everyone will see it for what it is.

  20. burt 20
    6 October 2009 at 11:31 pm

    RedLogix

    The first ever MP to be sentenced for bribery and corruption and you think 6 years is a racist sentence. WTF planet do you live on?

    If this were John Key would you seriously say six years was an unbelievably long sentence?

    It’s not about the man, it is about what he did. IMHO It is you that’s playing the race card, not the Judge.

    • felix 20.1
      6 October 2009 at 11:38 pm

      If this were John Key would you seriously say six years was an unbelievably long sentence?

      Yep.

      I understand there’s a special circumstance in this case as it involves public office, position of trust etc but I can’t help thinking it seems like a long time.

      Not a lawyer or anything though. Just a gut reaction.

      • Herman Poole 20.1.1
        7 October 2009 at 11:29 am

        I think the perverting the course of justice issues made it significantly longer. If none of that had occurred and it was just the bribery & corruption it may have been 2 or 3 years.

  21. RedLogix 21
    6 October 2009 at 11:42 pm

    I’m not going to argue with you. Everyone else here has been blinded by their tribal loyalties… including you. I don’t expect anyone to agree with me, I’m just calling it like I see it.

    I’ve seen this kind of racist shit over and over.. and it sickens me.

    • felix 21.1
      6 October 2009 at 11:44 pm

      Me too.

      • travellerev 21.1.1
        7 October 2009 at 8:53 pm

        Shit yeah,

        I would like to see a Maori Bill English doing the same shit as the Pakeha Bill English.

        I reckon he’d be in f&($n court right now.

        Captcha: operators

    • burt 21.2
      6 October 2009 at 11:50 pm

      RedLogix/felix

      Fair enough. I’ll agree to differ on the ideal duration. I can’t agree it is a racist sentence when I think it is a fair sentence for the crimes. So we won’t get far on this if you also think it was racist.

      By comparison I think the road rage guy should have got 9-12 years for dishing out a beating and killing someone. So 6 for bribery and corruption sounds pretty fair to me.

      Do you happen to know if there are proceeds of crime investigations?

      • felix 21.2.1
        7 October 2009 at 12:15 am

        No idea.

        Just had a similar discussion about the road rage guy with my better half.

        I don’t envy our judges. Not one bit.

        • Rex Widerstrom 21.2.1.1
          7 October 2009 at 7:33 pm

          I too drew a comparisons between the “road rage guy” and Field (as did a handful of others on the Kiiwiblog thread).

          I disagree… I don’t think this is racism I think it’s class — “class” in NZ being defined by money and/or position and attitude. The rednecks who worship The Garrotte are the same people, by and large, who used to wet themselves a little whenever Ron Mark used phrases like “I was in the army” and “get tough on crims”.

          My conclusion (which I won’t repeat at length here) was that we are beginning to value property above human life, an attitude that’s becoming pervasive in the Australian system (as they get richer off the back of the mining boom).

          And it may shock Standard readers to know that, when I last checked, that conclusion had 13 KB “positive karma” and no negative.

          • Quoth the Raven 21.2.1.1.1
            7 October 2009 at 11:01 pm

            It seems some people have the bizarre view that property rights can trump other rights like the right to life. They derive liberty from property instead of the converse.

  22. Westminster 22
    7 October 2009 at 7:28 am

    Bazingggg! I feel miffed Burt has not used the word “retrospective” in this thread. What’s wrong with this thread, Burt? You usually splash it about with such gay abandon around here and you’ve certainly been doing it on other threads about this (and every other) topic. So why not this one? C’mon, gimme a retrospective. Just one.

  23. marty mars 23
    7 October 2009 at 10:35 am

    Good call RedLogix totally agree with you

  24. TightyRighty 24
    7 October 2009 at 10:58 am

    It has to be said that DPF’s presentation of the facts regarding this case really does point out a few inconsistencies between how eddie is spinning this and what actually happened.

    • Out of bed 24.1
      7 October 2009 at 11:17 am

      Can’t see how Eddie is spinning anything to be honest
      And why an earth would anyone regard old dog whistle David’s presentation of anything but partisan bollocks, beggars belief

      • Pat 24.1.1
        7 October 2009 at 11:20 am

        Well he has presented a comprehensive timeline of the saga. Feel free to point out any of his points that are untrue.

      • Out of bed 24.1.2
        7 October 2009 at 11:21 am

        contrast his blog
        of Minister of lies Nick Smith
        http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2004/03/reaction_to_nick_smith_case.html

        • TightyRighty 24.1.2.1
          7 October 2009 at 11:28 am

          not really the point here oob. putting all his other work aside, and focusing on this issue, he’s right. There seems to be a reluctance on the part of labour party supporters to accept that this was all handled very badly by the last government.

          • Blue 24.1.2.1.1
            7 October 2009 at 11:51 am

            The problem is that Taito Phillip Field maintained that he was innocent. Still does.

            When you have a situation like that, with someone who was a trusted colleague and friend who swears to you black and blue that they didn’t do it, what do you do?

            It is the job of the New Zealand police force to investigate allegations that someone has broken the law. It’s not the government’s job. The much-criticised Ingram inquiry was only about what the government could deal with, which was about conflict of interest in Field’s actions as a minister.

            It was always over to the police to investigate criminal matters and Helen Clark made that quite clear.

      • gitmo 24.1.3
        7 October 2009 at 11:26 am

        Let’s just say there has been some rapid rotation on the issue regarding Labour’s actions or inactions regarding Field.

        With some on the left of the political spectrum seeing things like Labours defense of Field during question time and the very limited terms of reference of the Ingram inquiry through very rose tinted glasses. I suspect there are still a number of people in parliament and the public service feeling somewhat uncomfortable about what Field might say to the media or in a book about what really went on behind closed doors.

  25. Out of bed 25
    7 October 2009 at 11:10 am

    Not denying the prick needed to go away for awhile
    But IMHO six years is way over the top

    • gitmo 25.1
      7 October 2009 at 11:16 am

      First MP convicted of bribery and corruption – six years sends a strong message and he’ll be out in under three anyway – more than enough time to write a book in time for the 2011 election.

  26. Pat 26
    7 October 2009 at 11:14 am

    Now that Taito has got 6 years for his white collar crime, then surely Bluechip Briers must get 20.

  27. torydog 27
    7 October 2009 at 12:09 pm

    Now Tito has a conviction, does this make him a member of the National Party???

    Seems a good fit.

  28. Tammy Gordon 28
    7 October 2009 at 2:15 pm

    I’m with Herman. If Field had owned up from the beginning – if he’d acknowledged wrongdoing and showed remorse – even if he truly believes he didn’t intend to act corruptly – he never would have been sentenced to 6 years.

    Instead he effectively received 2 years for corruption, 2 years for perverting the course of justice and 2 years for being arrogant.

  29. torydog 29
    7 October 2009 at 2:19 pm

    I dont think johns at the UN.

  30. rave 30
    7 October 2009 at 9:33 pm

    The hypocrisy makes you sick. Its all about Cook’s revenge.
    Taito gets six years for some under the counter harmless human trafficking. The transactions didnt appear in the books while the cost of the SAS in Afghanistan will be in the estimates. Guess what is good and what is bad? Yeah right, helping the living is bad while making them dead is good.
    This non-market form of exchange flourished in the Pacific before the capitalist invaders. Cook found it a bit hard to fathom and got eaten. His kind have never forgiven the savages.
    It is racist in the sense of the mainly rich white banksters who are robbing us of trillions because they control the state and the legislature, are making an example of this marginal off balance sheet transaction involving mainly black migrant peoples.
    Meanwhile Key was insider trading on Tranzrail shares.
    This sort of inquisition is designed to legitimate the worship of the religion of parliamentary rules to save our market civilisation and the sovereign citizen.
    Meaning the right of rich whites to shit on poor blacks for the money.

    capcha: protecting.

    • raveisretarded 30.1
      8 October 2009 at 1:31 pm

      “Meaning the right of rich whites to shit on poor blacks for the money.”

      Ummmmm I think you’ll find that in this case it was PF, as a rich polynesian, shitting on poor asians for money/freebies.

      But hey beat yourself up for being a whitey if you want.

  31. dave 31
    8 October 2009 at 12:28 pm

    “We are fortunate that in New Zealand corruption by politicians is not tolerated. This sentence will be a healthy reminder”

    In fact this sentence ” we are fortunate that in New Zealand corruption by politicians is not tolerated” in light of this TPF case is a healthy reminder that it *is* in fact tolerated if it is politically convenient to do so.

    Furthermore Labour saw nothing wrong with defending corruption whilst in power, and its about time it admitted it.