Undesirables for Banks

Written By: - Date published: 2:11 pm, October 25th, 2011 - 102 comments
Categories: john banks - Tags:

Pamphlets are circling highlighting past comments made by Mr Banks, including anti-homosexuality and racist ideas. Right-wing bloggers say it’s all part of nasty campaign tactics by Labour. “waa, waa, waa” said Farrar and Slater “it’s mean to quote a man’s words when he’s trying to keep his true views secret from the voters”.

Mr Banks could not be reached for comment but in the past has said “If I wear my policy on my sleeve, I won’t get elected”.

102 comments on “Undesirables for Banks ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. randal 1
    25 October 2011 at 2:34 pm

    I’m afraid banks, slater and farrar are al of the same ilk.
    they think they can re-make the world just the way they want it with them in coontrol dishing out punishment and retribution as they see fit.
    It is just as well we live in a democratic country otherwise it would not be nice if these people got their way.
    You know they are perfect…*rseholes.

  2. Joe Bloggs 2
    25 October 2011 at 3:07 pm

    It’s a little lame of Levi Joule to present comments from Banks dating to 1978 and suggest that they were made in 2010.

    If Joule wants to hold Banks accountable for comments made 33 years ago then let’s also look at more recent statements – such as the statement made by David Parker that the Sensible Sentencing Trust had made a large donation to the Act Party – evidently the SST has called out Parker for lying and defamation action is already under way…

    • mickysavage 2.1
      25 October 2011 at 3:14 pm

      You righties stun me.
       
      Back when Helen wanted to do something about rorts and corporates dominating political campaigns it was all “wah wah wah freedom of speech wah wah wah.”
       
      And now when someone publishes something Banks has actually said and it is “wah wah wah bring in the lawyers wah wah wah”.
       
      Let SST open up its books and show how baby identity stealer Garrett got on ACT’s list.
       
      Although you are right in one respect.  If I was accused of making a donation to ACT I would also sue.

      • The Voice of Reason 2.1.1
        25 October 2011 at 3:48 pm

        Yep, with you there, mickey. I didn’t realise it had got so bad for ACT that even talk of an association with them is grounds for a defamation action.
         
        It’s going to be hard for the SST to prove any loss, given that they knowingly employed a two strikes criminal and were complicit in keeping the truth hidden so he could work on their behalf in Parliament. Not to mention their more regular public shows of racism, hypocrisy and cant, which have diminished their standing in the public since day one.
         
        Still, I guess they are pretty desperate at the moment, what with their political arm imploding and the media obviously no longer ringing them for comment every time a crime is committed.
         
        My prediction? No legal action whatsoever against Parker. And not just because they are unlikely to win damages, but because the SST would have to sue the publisher as well. That’s one David P. Farrar, (last known address somewhere deep inside the pocket of the SST).

      • Pete George 2.1.2
        25 October 2011 at 3:51 pm

        This is stinky campaigning. I’ve never been a fan of Banks, I’d be happy to see him lose, but this is downright dishonest intent. Even more disgraceful is people who should know better defending it.

        And Greg, I thought you would know better about trying to spread accusations you have no proof about. Aren’t you supposed to be a lawyer?

        • mickysavage 2.1.2.1
          25 October 2011 at 4:05 pm

          Petey boy.
           
          Complain to the Herald.  It published the two quotes.  The quotation mark thingys around the quotes mean they are quotes and the bit that says “NZ Herald, 31 July 2010” is the source.
           
          Dishonest intent?  Or Banks expressing an honestly held opinion?

          • Pete George 2.1.2.1.1
            25 October 2011 at 4:19 pm

            You will have to ask Banks if he honestly held those opinions then.

            By not referencing the original quote it looks dishonest.

            And totally unneccesary – if it referenced the original quotes it would have highlighted how long Banks has been a prat.

            If Parker wasn’t involved (hopefully) he really needs to deal with this, or it’s a bad look for one of the more sensible Labour MPs.

          • Joe Bloggs 2.1.2.1.2
            25 October 2011 at 4:29 pm

            honestly held opinion in 1978 – dishonest intent in 2011

            That’s the difference Greg.

            • mickysavage 2.1.2.1.2.1
              25 October 2011 at 4:52 pm

              Que?

              One of the statements was made in 1993.  And why should the time elapsed make a difference? 

              • Lanthanide …
                25 October 2011 at 5:20 pm

                “And why should the time elapsed make a difference? ”

                You really want to go there, do you?

                You’re just begging for Goff’s asset sales quotes from the 4th Labour government to be dug up, aren’t you?

                • mickysavage …
                  25 October 2011 at 5:58 pm

                  Lanth

                  It is not as if the right has kept a civilized silence on Goff’s 1980s views.  You mean they are only going to start now?  Besides one of Banks’ statements was from 1993. 

                • burt …
                  25 October 2011 at 8:46 pm

                  Lanthanide

                  You wouldn’t need to back very for a hypocrisy call either. Benson-Pope sets a recent precedent for not judging an act in yesteryear by todays standards.

              • Pete George …
                25 October 2011 at 5:25 pm

                The elapsed time makes no difference to what I think of Act.

                The intentional dishonesty makes a big diffeence to what I thought of David Parker if he was involved or if he doesn’t publicly deal with it.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  25 October 2011 at 6:20 pm

                  PG this low level shit is beneath Parker’s notice. Parker should keep campaigning hard out in Epsom and not be distracted by faraway Dunedin detractors.

                  • Pete George …
                    25 October 2011 at 9:13 pm

                    He has felt a need to issue a half retraction, sort of:

                    Garth McVicar has today (25 October) said that the Sensible Sentencing Trust has not made donations of money to any political party, including Act. It appears from his statement that the only gift the Trust itself made to Act was David Garrett. What donations, if any, came from members of the so-called Sensible Sentencing Trust to Mr Garrett or Act I do not know.

                    Goes micky write his speeches?

                    • mickysavage …
                      25 October 2011 at 9:30 pm

                      Fuck off Petey.

                      There is an acknowledged significant link between the SST and ACT.  Garret went from one to the other.

                      Money may or may not have been paid.  I wish I knew.  Any public  “charity” that engages in advocacy like the SST ought to publish its accounts and donations, that way the public can know what is happening.

                      If you want to read an intelligent argument for this go to George Monbiot’s article here.  Go ahead, educate yourself.

                      And I do not write Farrar’s speeches and am just as able to take faux umbrage at this suggestion as you did about Parker’s statement.

                      Tell me Petey are you in the slightest bit upset that Banks thinks that Maori are criminals or that Polynesians are drunken thugs?  Or are you just following in the footsteps of the coiffured one and wanting to run cover for the right? 

                      EDIT: This is one big snow job to divert attention from Banks statements. So predictable Petey, so predictable.

                    • Pete George …
                      25 October 2011 at 9:40 pm

                      Tetchy.

                      I’ve already said I’ve never been a fan of Banks, maybe these old statements are part of the reason, I don’t remember. I don’t know if he still thinks the same but I don’t care, I don’t have him in my electorate and I won’t be voting Act.

                      I’m more concerned about Parker because I had some respect for him even though he has headed north. He’s gone back in my estimation because as I’m sure you know he claimed similar to what you did. Unlike you he has now offered a half cocked retraction.

                      You’ve gone back in my estiimation too, I knew you were a party wally but as a lawyer I thought you would have more integrity than to make insinuations without any backing.

                      It’s stinking party politics Greg.

                    • mickysavage …
                      25 October 2011 at 9:53 pm

                      So Pete you think that Banks thinking and saying that Maori are criminals or that Polynesians are drunken thugs is not as bad as Parker presuming that there was a deal and the obviously strong link between SST and ACT involved the payment of money.

                      I hope the electors of New Zealand deliver a result that means you do not occupy public office.

                      And you also need to lean what “insinuation” means as you obviously do not currently understand its meaning. 

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      25 October 2011 at 9:57 pm

                      PG talking about stinking politics without noticing that its his own political odour which is stinking.

                    • Pete George …
                      25 October 2011 at 10:05 pm

                      Something I don’t like or agree with that Banks said 33 years ago hasn’t changed my mind about him. There’s stuff he says now that is much more pertinent to this century and I usually don’t like what I hear still.

                      Something being done by Labour operators in Epsom now is dishonest.

                      And I think your tactics lack integrity and reflect poorly on your profession.

                    • mickysavage …
                      25 October 2011 at 10:23 pm

                      Hum Petey 2011 – 1993 = 18

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      25 October 2011 at 10:24 pm

                      PG now mumbling something about integrity. Is this a joke?

                      (In addition to the bad math)

          • mickysavage 2.1.2.1.3
            25 October 2011 at 4:46 pm

            Petey boy

            I thought you would know better about trying to spread accusations you have no proof about. Aren’t you supposed to be a lawyer?

             

            F u.  The quotes are statements by Banks reported by the Herald.  I have copies of the Herald article.  So Petey better retract now. 

            • Pete George 2.1.2.1.3.1
              25 October 2011 at 5:22 pm

              I was referring to Act and SST.

              • mickysavage …
                25 October 2011 at 5:55 pm

                Well then point out where I have spread accusations about SST funding Act.

                • Pete George …
                  25 October 2011 at 6:06 pm

                  2.1- “Let SST open up its books and show how baby identity stealer Garrett got on ACT’s list.”

                  • mickysavage …
                    25 October 2011 at 6:17 pm

                    Nope.  This is saying that SST should open up its books and show it has not.  I said this because I would love to see how it is funded.  It clearly is not a statement that SST did fund ACT.   

                    BTW I was not publishing the allegation, just responding to Joe Bloggs who was.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      25 October 2011 at 6:59 pm

                      Why should the SST open up it’s books to show how Garrett got into the Act party?

                      Clearly you have an underlying presumption that unless they show that they do not fund Act, that they must be funding Act.

                    • Pete George …
                      25 October 2011 at 7:11 pm

                      Should Labour open it’s books and reveal all funding just in case someone can find something embarrassing?

                      You clearly put an idea out there for the purpose of creating an impression of impropriety, or at least raise doubt, with absolutely no evidence.

                      Dirty politics Greg, that’s all that is, no matter how much you try and squirm a denial. You’re too embedded in the nasty side. To you any tactics to achieve the result you want are justified. A lot of people have had a gutsful of that, and will either vote against it or increasingly won’t vote.

                    • Joe Bloggs …
                      25 October 2011 at 7:28 pm

                      Funny Greg, I thought that you being all lawyered up ‘n all, you’d be aware of the presemption of innocence, and of the obligation for the accusers to provide evidence of guilt.

                      Instead you’re baying for SST to open its books to prove a negative – guilty until proven innocent eh? Is that how your version of the law works out in the Wild West?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      25 October 2011 at 7:43 pm

                      yeah I always thought it quite likely that ACT and the SST were together thick as vindictive punitive thieves.

                      Nothing like getting a couple of moralistic authoritarians together to pass money and favours between each other.

                    • mickysavage …
                      25 October 2011 at 8:34 pm

                      Lanth

                      Why should the SST open up it’s books to show how Garrett got into the Act party?

                      I just want to see how SST is funded.  They occupy a public position and advocate on matters of policy.  I would like to see how they function.  Overseas such requests are not unusual.

                      EDIT: Petey Labour does declare its donations. National use trusts to hide the identity of its donors.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      25 October 2011 at 8:42 pm

                      So what has seeing how SST is funded got to do with Garrett being on Act’s list?

                    • mickysavage …
                      25 October 2011 at 9:35 pm

                      Lanth George Monbiot puts the case for full disclosure by public interest groups here.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      25 October 2011 at 11:10 pm

                      You didn’t actually answer the question. I’m not interested in what George Monbiot thinks.

                      I want to know why you associated the SST opening up their books publicly with the question of how David Garrett ended up on the Act party list.

                      I’ll take your repeated diversions on this point as an indication that you know you’ve put your foot in it.

        • felix 2.1.2.2
          25 October 2011 at 4:13 pm

          “Even more disgraceful is people who should know better defending it.”

          You mean people defending Banks’ bigotry? I agree. Disgusting.

          • Ari 2.1.2.2.1
            25 October 2011 at 11:56 pm

            Pretty much. When Banks retracts those statements and apologises for making them, THEN maybe it will be relevant whether his opponents come out against the ad campaign, IF it continues after that hypothetical apology. Until then, it’s far more relevant that Banks is still on the record as several different types of bigot.

      • Bunji 2.1.3
        25 October 2011 at 3:53 pm

        Fabulous to see that even the right-whingers think that donating to ACT is such a blot on your character as to be able to sue for defamation…

        (I imagine it was SST donors whose donations accompanied Garrett, rather than SST donating directly – no point in funnelling thru a Trust that’s not the Waitemata Trust or similar construct…)

    • Blighty 2.2
      25 October 2011 at 3:33 pm

      joe. They quoted their source: a 2010 editon of the Herald. What the hell are you complaining about?

      • Ari 2.2.1
        25 October 2011 at 11:58 pm

        He’s complaining that the 2010 herald is not the original source and makes the quotes seem more recent than they are, which would be a fair point, IF Banks ever decided to apologise for making them.

    • mik e 2.3
      25 October 2011 at 4:52 pm

      Don’t forget Rev Capill who wrote the SSts policies

  3. mickysavage 3
    25 October 2011 at 3:10 pm

    Farrar is really showing the depth of his convictions.  Back in 2008 the slightest regulation of advertising was going to be the death knell of democracy.  Now a young politically aware person puts out a brochure and Farrar and Slater launch a frenzied attack on him.
     
    How dare he.  It is so unfair publicising something that Banks has actually said.
     

  4. felix 4
    25 October 2011 at 3:20 pm

    And is Banks going to front up and denounce his long-held views on polynesians and homosexuals?

  5. Ben 5
    25 October 2011 at 3:26 pm

    Having not seen the Herald article, are these quotes reproductions of things Banks said in the 70s that were re-printed in the Herald last year? Or things he actually said in 2010?

    If it’s the former then those pamphlets are deliberately misleading.

    • Blighty 5.1
      25 October 2011 at 3:36 pm

      how are they misleading? They say NZ Herald, their source, and the date of that source.

      And if you think the fact that Banks was saying these things 33 years ago makes it ok, that’s your problem. Until he renounces his statements, they’re his views.

      • Ben 5.1.1
        25 October 2011 at 3:42 pm

        If Hitler or Ghandi or Einstein were quoted in the Herald last week, it would be misleading for me to publish the quote and cite last week’s Herald as it’s source as though that’s when the comment was originally made.

        While I agree that his statements stand until such time as they’re renounced, publishing a document which infers they were said in 2010 when they weren’t is, in my view, misleading. Doing that sort of thing reduces the credibility of the pamphlet in general and gives apologists (Farrar, Slater et al.) a point to defend, effectively allowing them to side-step the issue.

        And if you think that by not explicitly condemning his statements I’m suggesting they are OK, you’re reading way too far between the lines.

        • The Voice of Reason 5.1.1.1
          25 October 2011 at 3:50 pm

          Hey, Ben, is Iwi/Kiwi misleading?

          • Pete George 5.1.1.1.1
            25 October 2011 at 3:54 pm

            I didn’t like them either. Anyway it doesn’t excuse this deliberate misleading.

            • The Voice of Reason 5.1.1.1.1.1
              25 October 2011 at 4:35 pm

              Pete, is asking people to vote for a candidate and party you wouldn’t vote for yourself misleading? If so, how do you excuse yourself?

              • Pete George …
                25 October 2011 at 4:38 pm

                You’re being dishonestly misleading. And pathetic. And off topic.

                • The Voice of Reason …
                  25 October 2011 at 5:10 pm

                  Ha! At least we know where Banks stands, unlike the United Follicles candidate in Dunedin North. Banks said these things. He has never denied saying them and despite having a good opportunity to reject his earlier racism as part of a response to the pamphlets, he hasn’t done so. Now, being a racist is probably an advantage in Epsom, so I don’t suppose he will say that it was all along time ago, mistakes were made, I vas only following orders, etc, etc…
                   
                  I must say I find your faux outrage rather amusing, Pete. As the least transparent and open candidate in NZ political history you should be well aware that hiding what you really think is a vital tool in the armoury of the politically vapid. You and Banks are like peas in a pod, in that regard. Mushy peas, at that.

          • Ben 5.1.1.1.2
            25 October 2011 at 3:57 pm

            Not sure why that question arises in this context, but in my view putting it like that effectively creates the notion that Iwi and Kiwi are somehow mutually exclusive. Whether it’s misleading or not depends on whether you believe that to be the case, I guess, but I don’t have a strong view either way.

            • The Voice of Reason 5.1.1.1.2.1
              25 October 2011 at 5:19 pm

              Cheers, Ben. What I’m suggesting is that blurring the lines has been a political ploy in NZ for at while now. I have no problems with the Epsom pamphlets because they are factually correct, which is not the case with the Iwi/Kiwi hoarding, which was just a dogwhistle to the ‘I’m not a racist, but …’ crowd.
               
              I think it would have been better if they’d left the date off (just John Banks, NZ Herald), because that has given the right an opportunity to get all shrill and pompous about a tiny matter, when the substance remains. Banks is a racist, that’s the real story.

        • Colonial Viper 5.1.1.2
          25 October 2011 at 4:02 pm

          If Hitler or Ghandi or Einstein were quoted in the Herald last week, it would be misleading for me to publish the quote and cite last week’s Herald as it’s source as though that’s when the comment was originally made.

          ???

          You cite the publication where you got the information, and the date of that publication!!!! Happens all through university. Where were you?

          If you pull a quote by Jesus from the King James bible, what would you do, not reference the bible?

          Madness.

          • Ben 5.1.1.2.1
            25 October 2011 at 4:16 pm

            Where was I? Not at university.

            While it’s becoming clear that what’s been said is technically “correct”, the author of those flyers has either (a) not read any further than the Herald article to check the date on which those comments were made, or (b) chosen to use the 2010 date in order to make the point more valid to the current political climate. I’m not saying he’s quoted it in error, or that he had no right to quote it. I’m simply saying that certain details have been omitted to make it seem more relevant. And people will pounce on that as a reason to dismiss the information in those flyers.

            Banks said what he said, I’m not questioning that. What I’m saying is it’s better to be completely upfront about things so as not to give your opponents an option to debate the details rather than the content, which is exactly what’s happened here.

            Either way, Banks will likely come back with something like “Look I’m not going to debate things I said in the 1970s” and the MSM will let him away with it.

            • QoT 5.1.1.2.1.1
              25 October 2011 at 9:16 pm

              I’m with Ben, I’ve got to say. Banks is such a scumfuck that his critics certainly shouldn’t need to resort to even unthinking dishonesty or spin to bring him down.

          • Joe Bloggs 5.1.1.2.2
            25 October 2011 at 4:37 pm

            If you pull a quote by Jesus from the King James bible, what would you do, not reference the bible? hello face – meet hand slap!

            In this case Joule hasn’t cited the KJV but has cited the NZ Herald instead.

            The pamphlet would have been a little more credible if the citation had included a reference to the date when the words were originally spoken and the publication in which they appeared, followed by a comment to the effect “as reported in the NZH…”

            That’s how citations of words quoted 30+ years later normally work – brush up on your APA style CV

        • Blighty 5.1.1.3
          25 October 2011 at 4:37 pm

          I tried to read this but stopped at “boo hoo hoo, don’t quote Banks’ racist and homophobic remarks, people might like him even less, boo hoo hoo”

  6. Ianupnorth 6
    25 October 2011 at 3:52 pm

    Two words – Exclusive Brethern – when they were attacking Labour and the Greens the right were quite happy that it was happening. But poor Banksie, all upset because someone is doing the same to him.
     
    As has been stated here before there is far more dirt to come!

  7. tsmithfield 7
    25 October 2011 at 4:22 pm

    Regardless of the rights and wrongs of this pamphlet, I am not so sure it is such a good idea.

    After all, there is probably a fairly substantial percentage of the voting public that would agree with the sentiments expressed.

    • Colonial Viper 7.1
      25 October 2011 at 4:59 pm

      Let them vote Banks then. Its not like they don’t already know he is a red neck brother.

  8. Barnsley Bill 8
    25 October 2011 at 4:24 pm

    Blimey, have any of you actually been through the Epsom electorate?
    Despite the fact that this is dirty pool it will probably ring a bell in that electorate for Banks*
    Now lets see some “sell everything” quotes from Goffs past.

    *I live in Northland and would vote for Sue Bradford before I would cast a vote for Banks.

  9. Political Bear 9
    25 October 2011 at 4:28 pm

    There is nothing legally or technically wrong with the leaflet. It is bloody obvious that EVERY law was complied with by the author.

    These crocodile tears are pathetic. National/Act aren’t getting their own way in Epsom and are now engaging in a smear campaign on a kid who is standing up for what he believes in promoting quotes attacking demographics he belongs too.

    Its just hypocritical. It ok to make blindingly misleading quotes about homosexuals, Pacific people, Maori and Women (as the four leaflets highlight) at an attempt to get an electoral bounce out of prejudice and bigotry but dirty tactics in calling someone up on it.

    Banks has never apologised for those views and people should know about it.

    • Joe Bloggs 9.1
      25 October 2011 at 4:43 pm

      It ok to make blindingly misleading quotes about homosexuals, Pacific people, Maori and Women (as the four leaflets highlight) at an attempt to get an electoral bounce out of prejudice and bigotry but dirty tactics in calling someone up on it.

      So where do you stand on Trevor Mallard calling Finlayson Tinkerbell?

      Is that OK because its an attempt to get an electoral bounce out of prejudice and bigotry? Or is that just dirty tactics?

      • Political Bear 9.1.1
        25 October 2011 at 4:48 pm

        I oppose it. If he has been doing that, then it is a disgrace and he should apologise. But, it begs the question- how does that negate my original position?

      • mickysavage 9.1.2
        25 October 2011 at 9:36 pm

        Ho hum another diversion.  Joe how do you feel about Banks’ statements?

  10. randal 10
    25 October 2011 at 4:38 pm

    Well I hope the SST does sue.
    Lets see what they are made of.
    I hope the standard sends soemone along to the hearings.
    The SST and banks and his mob are right into punishment.
    They love inflicting pain because maybe they were abused as children and now they want to get even.
    Hate to see what sort of B&D they get into when no-one can see them.
    Meanwhile they have skewed the whole system and made everyone afraid.
    instead of doing something to alter the psychopathology that runs rife in this community they make it worse by offering the same punshment as the crimes and committing the government to massive spending programmes of stuff instead of doing something with people.
    they just sik f*ks.
    What the hell is the media for. Just for reporting the crap and advertising the contracts for stuff like new prsions and electric fences, and smoking porogrammes that dont work etc etc etc.

  11. Anthony 11
    25 October 2011 at 4:54 pm

    When I read those flyers I assumed they were crazy “hollow men” style comments that were made recently.

    Definitely misleading, but the right love bringing up Goff’s business from that period and claiming it represents his views now so diddums tbh.

  12. Uturn 12
    25 October 2011 at 5:02 pm

    Did they ever catch “the maori criminal”? What did he do? Did he died?

    I saw a polynesian looking fellow eating some lollies while I was on the bus. He was also driving the bus. But the sign did say no eating or drinking. So that’s urinating, punching, eating lollies and driving buses to add to the rap sheet. When will it end?

  13. interesting 13
    25 October 2011 at 5:14 pm

    So….if it is fine for left leaning people to remind the publi of things that Banks said 30 years ago (cos clearly it seems impossible for any of you to believe that people can change their convictions over time)….. can people start putting out pamphlets of phil goff talking about all the things that he has said over the last 30 years….like for instance how great asset sales are?? how great it is to have a business taxx rate of 28%…..and so on…..or is it only okay to remind voters what mean nasty right-wingers said 30 years ago?

    • Uturn 13.1
      25 October 2011 at 5:28 pm

      Dunno he would have had much to say about that specifically since his areas were education, housing and employment. But don’t worry, “the world isn’t perfect”. Best we all just accept it.

      • Anthony 13.1.1
        25 October 2011 at 6:08 pm

        Yep, they’ve tried that one already anyway about asset sales and trying to discredit him as a closet rogernome, shoes on the other foot now righties so handle it.

    • weizguy 13.2
      25 October 2011 at 9:11 pm

      Both are fine. There’s no reason why Goff shouldn’t have to explain decisions made earlier in his political career. They’re uncomfortable questions, but I, for one, don’t have a problem with them being asked. As I understand it, he’s explained himself.

      Now it’s Banks’ turn. Can’t see it though.

  14. Lanthanide 14
    25 October 2011 at 5:35 pm

    Here’s a guide to APA style citation. This is a citation using a secondary or indirect source.

    http://umanitoba.ca/student/u1/lac/media/Citing-Secondary-or-Indirect-Sources-07.pdf

    Example #1 – Quotes
    Trost (1986) researched “what holds marriage together,” (as cited in Beaujot, 2000, p.
    110) and found that several typical bonds had weakened.

    You’ll note that the date is given next to the original author, Trost. This is the only example of the style that included the original date that I found on the net in my short amount of googling.

    However it goes on to say this:

    Compared to quotes, paraphrases only require the author’s last name and date of
    publication in both indirect and regular paraphrases, but note that the phrase “as cited in” is
    essential for citing indirect sources.

    Emphasis mine.

    The other examples in the pdf all show the date of the original statement included in the citation.

    • Colonial Viper 14.1
      25 October 2011 at 6:24 pm

      I’m sure he’ll take all this useful info under advisement for the second lot on Banks he publishes.

      Banks has said a lot of shit over time so no doubt there will be a second lot.

      • Lanthanide 14.1.1
        25 October 2011 at 6:25 pm

        Hopefully, it would give the banks brigade one less vector of attack. Not that I think anyone is particularly concerned with their attacks.

    • Political Bear 14.2
      26 October 2011 at 1:50 pm

      I missed the section of the Electoral Act requiring APA? More of a Chicago guy myself.

      The leaflets were accurate and and followed all legal requirements. What’s the issue? Whether he said them now or 30 years ago- they are still inaccurate and bigoted and the leeaflets would only be misleading if he had over that 30 year period retracted them ajnd they then presented them as recent…

      I’m indifferent either way- live by the bigot baiting die by the bigot baiting…

  15. NickS 15
    25 October 2011 at 6:05 pm

    /smirk

    Awww, poor Banks and friends, crying over having their own toxic behaviours used against them.

    Though the url for the articles those quotes are from should have been included, if only to save time on the odious task of googling them for context.

    Also I find it rather pathetically predictable that the sewer et al are claiming “it labour dat dun it!” without showing any evidence, as not only is Labour not the only party on the left, but there’s also the fact that Banks isn’t exactly well liked even on the right.

    • mickysavage 15.1
      25 October 2011 at 9:39 pm

      NickS

      I have seen the article today.  It appears that it is not on the Herald website.  It was part of an in depth article on Banks prior to the election.  So no URL sorry …

  16. millsy 16
    25 October 2011 at 6:37 pm

    No doubt Whale and his boyfriend would have liberally reproduced Keith Locke’s 1970’s writings about the happenings in Cambodia/Democratic Kampuchea.

    [nothing wrong with a guy having a boyfriend. Although it is a bit of a love-hate thing with those two]

  17. randal 17
    25 October 2011 at 7:41 pm

    At the monent randal reads ‘TRUE” Conan story about 50foot slug. make good mate for slater.

  18. Puddleglum 18
    25 October 2011 at 8:20 pm

    That’s a very youthful looking John Banks – taken from around the time he said these things?

    Also, is the footer quote (about wearing policies on the sleeve) actually said in 2009?

    That seems a particularly damning quote to me – means you can’t trust anything he says in an election campaign (e.g., the other quotes might not have even been honest opinions but simply said for political advantage).

    Personally, I found the 2010 citation misleading, too – though any attempt to provide sources is a bit of a rarity in political material and, to that extent, quite positive. After all, by providing that source it allowed people to find out that the quotes weren’t said then.

    With no citation many, many people would have just assumed they were recent comments.

    So, in a funny way, having the citation was better for Banks than not having one.

  19. Dotty 19
    25 October 2011 at 8:24 pm

    Why is everyone assuming these are by Labour/the left?

    I an just as easily see them being spread by a pissed-off Rodney Hide supporter, or a supporter of ACT who is annoyed at how their party has been taken over by Brash and Banks.

    • McFlock 19.1
      25 October 2011 at 8:51 pm

      The attribution at thebottom of the picture, as per election advertising requirements. As far as I know there’s been no claim that the chap named isn’t responsible for them.
       
      Personally, aside from a relatively minor citation error (there’s no suggestion that the original source isn’t Banks, rather than the secondary source cited), I don’t have a huge problem with it, although the negativity is ookey and not really needed because Banks at this stage isn’t looking like being within a [g]nact’s whisker of anywhere close to winning this time.
       

      • Lanthanide 19.1.1
        25 October 2011 at 11:15 pm

        It might appear that he’s not on the winning course at the moment, but things can change very rapidly. If National dropped down low enough in the polls to really spook the voters, Act could easily come cruising back in via Epsom. In such a scenario I’d hope that their party vote was low enough to not bring Brash back in, but I wouldn’t count on that.

        Better to kick him while he appears to be down, than to ease off and be stuck with more political corpses smelling up parliament.

        • McFlock 19.1.1.1
          26 October 2011 at 1:16 pm

          But the more attention he gets the more he can nobly ignore the slings and arrows of dirty tricks.

          Something like this would be much more potent if the target is becoming liked again. At the moment it gives him oxygen. Not that I think that this sort of campaigning becomes the left.

          • felix 19.1.1.1.1
            26 October 2011 at 1:51 pm

            Meh. Kick him when he’s up, kick him when he’s down.

            The main thing is to keep kicking him.

  20. AB 20
    25 October 2011 at 9:09 pm

    Very happy to see these old comments from Banks dragged up, because I remember him saying them.
    I was living in the old Mt Roskill (or maybe Mt Albert) electorate in the late 70’s and a first-time voter. He was the National Pary candidate.
    I’ve detested the man ever since and have seen nothing since to change my mind about him.
    He didn’t win in Mt Roskill, but much to my rage, took off to my old home town of Whangarei and squatted there for years as the National MP, spreading his vileness.

  21. felix 21
    25 October 2011 at 9:12 pm

    Just to be clear, Banks said these things and he fucking meant them. The useful idiots and cretins to my right would have us believe:

    That Banks was a bigot in 1978, and he was a bigot in 1993, but now he’s not.

    Whatever.

    • McFlock 21.1
      25 October 2011 at 9:30 pm

      the other alternative put forward in the comments is that he was pretending to be a bigot in 1978 and 1993, but isn’t really. Which is so much better.

    • Ari 21.2
      26 October 2011 at 12:04 am

      If he honestly wasn’t a bigot anymore, it would still make a difference. (although the man is detestable on so many levels I doubt he’d win even then) I don’t mind when people back down and at least pretend to change their minds, so long as they do it.

  22. Jum 22
    25 October 2011 at 10:04 pm

    The Colin Craig conservative party must be loving this – they put out the pamphlet and Labour gets the blame. All the moneyed types like business rotundtable and fay richwhite act-alikes that want rid of National are backing the conservative party to wrest the right ground from National.

    There are no act billboards in Franklin. There are big conservative billboards though – funny that…

    Ya think life will be bad with NActU? Try nat/conservatives. Women, especially, watch your freedoms erode even faster.

    • Lanthanide 22.1
      25 October 2011 at 11:16 pm

      I think if Act finally bites the dust, the conservatives will be ascendant in 2014. There’s not really enough room for both of them with the current vote (Act got 3.65%), unless one or the other can peel off some from National. Brash promised he could do it but abysmally failed.

      In contrast, Mana can probably eke out a small niche from both MP and Green voters.

      • Colonial Viper 22.1.1
        25 October 2011 at 11:22 pm

        Mana’s challenge is becoming a movement which is more than just a one man Harawira band. Will it be able to, will he allow it.

        Otherwise the entire party will rise and fall with his star, and last two or three terms max before disappearing again.

  23. Craig 23
    26 October 2011 at 4:48 pm

    Meanwhile, this distracts attention from ACT’s latest internal wrangling, involving Banks’ electoral staff and advisors walking out… because they don’t think he’s a fit or trustworthy candidate, perhaps? If anything destroys Bank’s slender chances of retaking Epsom, I suspect that it may well originate from within his ‘own’ party…

  24. Craig 24
    26 October 2011 at 6:27 pm

    Jum:
    Yes, you raise a good point about Kolin Kraig and the Konservatives. They seem to be vacuuming up susceptible other microparties (the Kiwi Party and New Citizens, to date). They’re not registering on any opinion polls, though. At the moment, they’re New Zealand’s only militant fundamentalist/religious social conservative microparty. I suspect that they won’t win any seats, and I’d be very surprised if it got as much as one percent. Fundamentalist Christians are prone to factionalism and arcane ideological/theological debates- rather like hardline libertarians or marxist-leninists, in fact.

    Amusing that Family First seems to want Winston back…

    [lprent: Please don’t bother with the K’s and deliberate misspellings, it is too simplistic and gets really stale really fast (the rest of your comment is fine). Eventually I get sick of them and add them to the spammer lists. Learn to be more subtle with the insults so we poor moderators don’t get bored and start making our own fun.. You really don’t want to see what that is like. ]