The donkey and the ass

Written By: - Date published: 6:59 am, August 1st, 2012 - 45 comments
Categories: corruption, crime, john banks, john key - Tags:

Key says the local elections law is an ass. Presumably, he knows what that phrase means: it delivers unjust results. Key thinks its unjust that Banks has escaped justice for his anonymous donation rort. Well, John you’re not helpless. Banks lied to media. He lied to you. He said he hadn’t solicited the donations. Didn’t know about them. He did. He lied to you and New Zealand. Sack him.

45 comments on “The donkey and the ass”

  1. Craig Glen Eden 1

    Its really interesting that the media have not picked up on the LIE factor as that is in my view the problem for Key politically now. Key got the result that he needed to save his Government but Banks lying is got real stink value which is the kind of stuff that slowly kills any Government.

    John Banks is now cannon fodder when ever he says anything the opposition can simply say are your “sure about that Mr Banks would you care to put your name on it Mr Banks”. John Banks is literally dead man walking.

    • Pascal's bookie 1.1

      “John Banks is literally dead man walking.”

      Pretty sure you’re thinking of @DrBrash

    • seeker 1.2

      @Craig Glen Eden

      ” but Banks lying has got real stink value which is the kind of stuff that slowly kills any Government.”

      Well said. It is the kind of stench which clings to and permeates everything that is of John Banks, is around John Banks, that touches John Banks or is in any way associated with John Banks. A nasty invasive, supporating virus is the ‘dishonourable lie’.
      Only a person immune to the virus because they have it themselves, like our dear PM John the Con, could put up with the other John the Con. Fancy having two of them in our government. A double stench!

  2. rosy 2

    The political etiquette of envelopes from Vernon Small On how it’s logically impossible to receive, in person, an anonymous donation in a sealed envelope.

    • The word anonymous describes the donation’s public character, not its private character- that is, someone inevitably can and should follow the money within the campaign or party. The only way a donation is anonymous is that it is not made public who finances a campaign or party, which is the real moral dilemma here.

      All yearly donation totals over a hundred dollars should be mandatory to disclose in any campaign- the principle being that it’s not possible to be corrupted or create a perception of corruption with distributed funding models, but it is with central ones. Furthermore, ban trusts or shell companies that do not disclose their own sources of funding from donating to prevent donor laundering.

      Problem solved. (Of course, the real problem is that neither National nor Labour would agree to such a system as it would disclose their real backers)

  3. muzza 3

    The real shame is how the public seem to just accept this as BAU…

    Carry on!

    • burt 3.1

      It’s a bit like the public have been conditioned to hearing shit like;

      Not in the public interest to prosecute – move on !

      • mike e 3.1.1

        Burt time for another cup of tea and do to banks what he did to brash and brash did to hide and hide did to prebble and and his dance partner.

    • Kotahi Tāne Huna 3.2

      Today’s Herald editorial starts by saying “John Banks will not live down the stain on his reputation”, and calls for his resignation.

      Doesn’t sound like “business as usual” to me.

      Politically, this is a much better outcome – if Banks had been prosecuted, Key would have had no choice, the Nats would have come away relatively clean. Now Key has to protect Banks, and his stink will rub off, just as Winston’s did.

      Has Key the spine for two years of that?

      • muzza 3.2.1

        Bloke you make some valid points, and one can only hope that it plays out along such lines…

        Banks has had stains on his reputation most of his career and is still there, the system embraces, supports and protects these types of people, as we see repeated over and over. If its not Banks it will simply be another in the wings, be it from the right, or the so called left, it makes no difference

        So it will be BAU, and what you refer to with Banks and Key, is BAU, its been going on for decades!

  4. There is no other word for it, Key is lying when he says that Banks is innocent.

    The Herald reported this morning that Key has read the police file.  If he had done so he would have seen that the police said they could not charge Banks with the lesser offence because the time for filing an information had expired.

    This is not technical matter.  There is a strict 6 month time period during which an information has to be laid.  Other offenses, for instance, driving with excess breath or blood alcohol, have the same limitation period.  Just because a police officer did not file the papers in time does not mean that you are innocent of the offence.

    • Dv 4.1

      Who was slow in filing the information?
      did Banks file the return after 6mths, or was the compaint late?

      As an aside seeing Banks is really keen to change the legislation, some One should ask him to make it RETROSPECTIVE,

    • bad12 4.2

      Hardly surprising that Slippery the Prime Minister again finds it hard to locate the truth as far as John(the convicted)Banks goes,

      Just as unsurprising is the slack New Zealand media who with what seems like deliberation have been deliberately running the Bank’s is innocent line in the face of even the Police saying that where there was a chance to convict Bank’s this has now evaporated because of the 6 months statute limiting such charges,

      One positive to ensue from Bank’s abhorrent behavior(not to ,mention that of Slippery the Prime Minister)is that those hoping for a re-build of the tarnished ACT political brand will now be sadly disappointed as ACT can now be declared officially deceased and we await the official burial,(likely to be at the next election as i doubt if National will endorse Banks again for Epsom)…

      • Kotahi Tāne Huna 4.2.1

        Um, The Herald editorial (linked above) today calls for his resignation…

        • bad12 4.2.1.1

          Yeah that’s a first,but,when you view the Television news coverage of the current little Bank’s scandal see it from the angle of the Police saying there is ‘nothing criminal here’, when in fact the opposite is actually closer to the truth,

          Whomever wrote the Granny-Herald editorial has the luxury of being able to call pompously for Slippery to give Banks the kick from the present Government knowing full well that that’s the
          last thing the Prime Minister will do, (Banks would just about have to indulge in a series of axe murders),

          Slippery can tho, wear the same smear of corruption that will tar Him,Banks,and,the National Government while Banks remains part of the present Government…

    • The Baron 4.3

      Oh yeah, kinda like driving dangerously at speed through mid-Canterbury on your way to a flight for a rugby game, and claiming you didn’t really notice…

      … or not remembering who signed that painting…

      Of course, you’re a partisan moron Greg, so these examples won’t phase you. I’m sickened by both sides myself. The Police have a long history of being completely fucking inept at prosecuting political matters over many years – that needs to change in general, not just cos they haven’t enforced the rules on the side you don’t like.

      • Tom Gould 4.3.1

        That bloody VIP driver should have been charged, alright. Wait a minute. He was.

      • Craig Glen Eden 4.3.2

        “Of course, you’re a partisan moron Greg” Please Baron, ok have it your way Baron (Bipartisan super brain), yup Helen should have said to her driver hay mate slow down you are going to fast which is not a good look and is really unsafe. Yup Helen should never have signed anything and given the object to charity to raise money for others. Bad Bad Helen. Happy now Baron?
        Can I suggest none of the examples that you gave would even register with anyone but someone with a political point to score! You may or may not belong to any Political Party Baron but Bipartisan you definatly are not.

        • Kotahi Tāne Huna 4.3.2.1

          Oh, I don’t know, he brings the same ignorance and slow-wittedness to all situations.

        • Glg 4.3.2.2

          You sound like the Israelis who when criticised go “why not worry about Syria, they are doing bad things” well baby, that’s not the topic, that’s why. No-one gives a shit about Helen, get over it.

      • Jason 4.3.3

        The driver of the motocade did get prosecuted and fined for his reckless driving.

    • Treetop 4.4

      The truth is, Banks got off on a technicality and Key needs to front up. Key has not stopped to think how ignorant he is about Banks and that NZers are not swallowing the deception.

      • Tom 4.4.1

        Re. the VIP driver and the Police – I would hate to impute mercenary considerations, but who is their paymaster ? It would seem to be the government of the day.

    • Honestly, I really think governmental corruption (including serious breach of election rules such as this matter) is different in nature to other crimes and ought not to subject to a statute of limitations at all.

  5. BernyD 5

    These people can change the law, write the law, yet they can’t even act in within the Laws Intent.

    If they can get away with crime they will,
    It’s a rat eat rat world after all.
    And they are eating their fill !

    • Draco T Bastard 5.1

      If they can get away with crime they will,

      Exactly. Especially if the laws are written in such a way as to make prosecuting a crime unlikely or impossible at which point these rats will say that the crime was legal.

      • BernyD 5.1.1

        Indeed, We can’t allow people with no repect for the Law to be writing or modifying them.
        With examples like this no one can trust the Law to function as it was intended.

        I.E. Anarchy in New Zealand as defined by our MP’s in government.
        No ones going to follow the law or beleive in it if these clowns keep this up

  6. captain hook 6

    boron should stick to the point.
    did john banks know or did he not know who gave him $50,000?
    if he does know then he should resign now.
    he has been hanging round too long anyway without actually doing anything.
    oh wait.
    he sold the pensioner housing out from under the people who needed it most and put it on the market.
    what a creep.

  7. Treetop 7

    When it comes to the non anonymous donations:
    Does Banks sign the declaration?
    Who fills the non anonymous donation form out?

    It would be interesting to compare the anon and the non anon ones.

  8. There is an old saying ‘if you lie down with a dog with fleas,you get fleas’
    Key is hanging on to banks to stay in government,end of, the taint of banks
    will affect the key led national government in the next election.
    Key insisted on having ‘shtrong,shtable,govmnt’,to date he has
    failed.
    With the amount of ‘failures’ in the master plan for nz,which mainly
    consist of mining,selling,hocking off to wealthy investors,policies that
    are left blowing around in the wind and landing any which way the wind
    blows,the attack on the vulnerable,mostly those who have been turfed
    out of jobs etc,its time for john key to call an early election and just give up
    because of the inabliltiy to accept that nz does not operate the same way
    that the country he came here from does,we expect respect for all and from
    the key led national govt many nz’ers dont get that respect.

  9. AmaKiwi 9

    We have the best government money can buy, because it is bought by huge bribes falsely justified as “campaign contributions.”
     
    We have sold our government to the wealthy.  My hard-earned annual $520 donation to the Labour Party is trivial compared to what giant corporations can pay to get tax breaks, government contracts, and profit making regulations, for which we ultimately pay.
     
    We should place a limit of $1,000 per person that can donated to political campaigns per year.  Every contribution must be identified by a personal IRD number.  Since companies and unions are not persons, but collections of people, they cannot contribute directly.
     
    This should be made law by a referendum so it cannot be negated by future parliamentary dictators. 
     
     

    • BernyD 9.1

      Watch out, the Government should not be allowed to make Law any more.
      They can’t be trusted, and asking the thieves to write a law about thieving is insane.

  10. Murray Olsen 10

    Key is probably less honest than Banks, so why should he have trouble lying down with him?

    • bad12 10.1

      I don’t think its a matter of quantifying the amount of their relevant dishonesty, it’s more a matter of skills, Banks being the rank amateur against the polished skills of Slippery…

      • ropata 10.1.1

        Slippery John would be totally outclassed by the intellect of David Cunliffe
        But Banks is so thick he makes J. “F*” Key seem coherent

        *the F is for flippant

    • felix 10.2

      Key outranks Banks in parliament, but there may be other arenas in which the reverse could be true.

  11. AmaKiwi 11

    I hear a lot of complaints but few calls to action.

    Earlier I proposed a complete revamp of the way we finance elections (see response 9 above).

    Do any of you agree with it? What ideas do you have for solutions?

    Our campaign financing laws are legalized bribery. The huge bribes have raised the cost of campaigns because everyone needs expensive television ads. The net result is that you and I have become irrelevant to the political process.

    My solution is to outlaw anyone contributing more than $1,000 a year. (Or set your own amount.) It would mean no television ads, but what’s wrong with that? ALL the parties will find other ways to win votes.

    If we work together and DEMAND change, we can get it. If we just complain nothing will change.

    • Murray Olsen 11.1

      I’d make it $100, Amakiwi. Even though many people couldn’t afford that, even less can afford $1000. I don’t think it’s the campaign financing that’s the main problem, though, except at actual election time. I think all the back scratching and jobs for the boys afterwards probably have at least as much effect during the terms of office.

  12. AmaKiwi 12

    To Murray Olsen

    OK, how do we stop the “back scratching”?

    IMO, “follow the money.” That line from Deep Throat to Bob Woodward finally cracked the Watergate scandal. “Follow the money” is the IRD’s most effective investigate strategy.

    Please tell us how you think we can uncover and stop the “back scratching.”

  13. tracey 13

    In the end you cant legislate morality. Key has chosen, now he is in power to use the law as the maximum benchmark for behaviour. It is in fact the minimum benchmark. Until all political leaders grasp this and acr upon it cobsistently and without self interest, law changes will have little impact.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Maintaining momentum for small business innovation
    Small Business Minister Stuart Nash says the report of the Small Business Council will help maintain the momentum for innovation and improvements in the sector. Mr Nash has thanked the members of the Small Business Council (SBC) who this week handed over their report, Empowering small businesses to aspire, succeed ...
    3 weeks ago