Discussion:
Where is the list of Labour Party donors?
(too old to reply)
Sue Bilstein
2006-09-04 21:02:20 UTC
Permalink
I'm expecting to see a complete list of everyone who has given money to
the Labour Party - since the lead-up to the 1999 campaign will do for
starters.

Date of donation, Donor name, Address and Amount.

Where is this published, anybody know? Tulia? Mike Parsons?
Roger Dewhurst
2006-09-04 21:09:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue Bilstein
I'm expecting to see a complete list of everyone who has given money to
the Labour Party - since the lead-up to the 1999 campaign will do for
starters.
Date of donation, Donor name, Address and Amount.
Where is this published, anybody know? Tulia? Mike Parsons?
We would probably find that there are big companies that contribute equally
to both National and Labour. There is nothing like an each way bet.

R
Sue Bilstein
2006-09-04 21:13:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by Sue Bilstein
I'm expecting to see a complete list of everyone who has given money to
the Labour Party - since the lead-up to the 1999 campaign will do for
starters.
Date of donation, Donor name, Address and Amount.
Where is this published, anybody know? Tulia? Mike Parsons?
We would probably find that there are big companies that contribute equally
to both National and Labour. There is nothing like an each way bet.
Well, Labour have no secrets, unlike National. So where is this
information published? I looked on the Labour Party website, but I
couldn't find it there.
a_l_p
2006-09-04 23:03:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue Bilstein
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by Sue Bilstein
I'm expecting to see a complete list of everyone who has given money to
the Labour Party - since the lead-up to the 1999 campaign will do for
starters.
Date of donation, Donor name, Address and Amount.
Where is this published, anybody know? Tulia? Mike Parsons?
We would probably find that there are big companies that contribute equally
to both National and Labour. There is nothing like an each way bet.
Well, Labour have no secrets, unlike National. So where is this
information published? I looked on the Labour Party website, but I
couldn't find it there.
Funny, that. Only this morning I heard Helen Clark droning on again about
National's secret funds as if she disapproved of them. So Labour's funds can't
be secret, can they? Otherwise one might suspect her of hypocrisy, and that
couldn't be true.

A L P
Harvey Wilson
2006-09-04 21:14:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue Bilstein
I'm expecting to see a complete list of everyone who has given money to
the Labour Party - since the lead-up to the 1999 campaign will do for
starters.
Date of donation, Donor name, Address and Amount.
Where is this published, anybody know? Tulia? Mike Parsons?
The height of hypocrisy is a Labour Government largely financed by
various Unions, and then turning around screaming corruption over
alleged donations for National by a religious group.

More so, in light of the fact that we are informed that the Engineers
Union has put up a replacement candidate for Fields, leaving us in no
doubt about who controls Labour and formulates much of their policy.
george
2006-09-04 21:29:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harvey Wilson
Post by Sue Bilstein
I'm expecting to see a complete list of everyone who has given money to
the Labour Party - since the lead-up to the 1999 campaign will do for
starters.
Date of donation, Donor name, Address and Amount.
Where is this published, anybody know? Tulia? Mike Parsons?
The height of hypocrisy is a Labour Government largely financed by
various Unions, and then turning around screaming corruption over
alleged donations for National by a religious group.
More so, in light of the fact that we are informed that the Engineers
Union has put up a replacement candidate for Fields, leaving us in no
doubt about who controls Labour and formulates much of their policy.
Helen had better be very careful about the claims that she is currently
making.
Not that any-one will sue her but elections change governments and the
talk she has initiated about retrospective legislation will come back
to haunt any party silly enough to go that route..
Pay the money Labor and get on with doing whatever it is you're
doing....
Roger
2006-09-04 21:32:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue Bilstein
I'm expecting to see a complete list of everyone who has given money to
the Labour Party - since the lead-up to the 1999 campaign will do for
starters.
Date of donation, Donor name, Address and Amount.
Where is this published, anybody know? Tulia? Mike Parsons?
To start the list
expat kiwi $500,000
Apparently he is a very big supporter of a free trade deal with china.
whome
2006-09-05 00:19:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue Bilstein
I'm expecting to see a complete list of everyone who has given money to
the Labour Party - since the lead-up to the 1999 campaign will do for
starters.
Date of donation, Donor name, Address and Amount.
Where is this published, anybody know? Tulia? Mike Parsons?
Labour are continuing with their campaign of obfuscation.

Taking perfectly legal donations and trying to twist facts around and claim
the donations were illegal.

This is pure desperation on labours part, and they should not throw stones
in a glass house.
Phil
2006-09-05 07:58:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue Bilstein
I'm expecting to see a complete list of everyone who has given money to
the Labour Party - since the lead-up to the 1999 campaign will do for
starters.
Date of donation, Donor name, Address and Amount.
Where is this published, anybody know? Tulia? Mike Parsons?
Party donations under $10k don't have to be disclosed.

The rest, can be found at
<http://election.govt.nz/parties/donations_summary.html>

-Phil
Sue Bilstein
2006-09-05 08:50:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil
Post by Sue Bilstein
I'm expecting to see a complete list of everyone who has given money to
the Labour Party - since the lead-up to the 1999 campaign will do for
starters.
Date of donation, Donor name, Address and Amount.
Where is this published, anybody know? Tulia? Mike Parsons?
Party donations under $10k don't have to be disclosed.
The rest, can be found at
<http://election.govt.nz/parties/donations_summary.html>
Thanks Phil.

2005 donations - what's all this then?

New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $25,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $50,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $40,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $40,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $20,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $50,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $20,000.00


No big surprise - Helen's a hypocrite.
Bok
2006-09-05 10:45:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue Bilstein
Post by Phil
Post by Sue Bilstein
I'm expecting to see a complete list of everyone who has given money to
the Labour Party - since the lead-up to the 1999 campaign will do for
starters.
Date of donation, Donor name, Address and Amount.
Where is this published, anybody know? Tulia? Mike Parsons?
Party donations under $10k don't have to be disclosed.
The rest, can be found at
<http://election.govt.nz/parties/donations_summary.html>
Thanks Phil.
2005 donations - what's all this then?
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $25,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $50,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $40,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $40,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $20,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $50,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $20,000.00
No big surprise - Helen's a hypocrite.
It's also interesting to note the parties that received anonymous
donations were the usual suspects:

Labour
Anderton Party
The Greens and
UF

Notwithstanding Clark's overt hypocrisy - I don't see a problem with
this type of private funding of political parties (anonymous or otherwise).
a_l_p
2006-09-05 12:21:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bok
Post by Sue Bilstein
Post by Phil
Post by Sue Bilstein
I'm expecting to see a complete list of everyone who has given money to
the Labour Party - since the lead-up to the 1999 campaign will do for
starters.
Date of donation, Donor name, Address and Amount.
Where is this published, anybody know? Tulia? Mike Parsons?
Party donations under $10k don't have to be disclosed.
The rest, can be found at
<http://election.govt.nz/parties/donations_summary.html>
Thanks Phil.
2005 donations - what's all this then?
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $25,000.00 New Zealand Labour
Party Anonymous $50,000.00 New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous
$40,000.00 New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $40,000.00 New
Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $20,000.00 New Zealand Labour Party
Anonymous $50,000.00 New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $20,000.00
No big surprise - Helen's a hypocrite.
It's also interesting to note the parties that received anonymous
Labour
Anderton Party
The Greens and
UF
Notwithstanding Clark's overt hypocrisy - I don't see a problem with
this type of private funding of political parties (anonymous or otherwise).
Yeah, but it's the hypocrisy that's the point at the moment innit?

A L P
Enkidu
2006-09-05 10:56:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue Bilstein
Post by Phil
Post by Sue Bilstein
I'm expecting to see a complete list of everyone who has given money to
the Labour Party - since the lead-up to the 1999 campaign will do for
starters.
Date of donation, Donor name, Address and Amount.
Where is this published, anybody know? Tulia? Mike Parsons?
Party donations under $10k don't have to be disclosed.
The rest, can be found at
<http://election.govt.nz/parties/donations_summary.html>
Thanks Phil.
2005 donations - what's all this then?
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $25,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $50,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $40,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $40,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $20,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $50,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $20,000.00
No big surprise - Helen's a hypocrite.
Duh! They are donations as declared according to law. What are these, then?

The New Zealand National Party Bell Gully Trust Account P O Box 4199,
Auckland $62,000.00
The New Zealand National Party Buddle Findlay Trust Account P O Box
1433, Auckland $25,000.00
The New Zealand National Party J Benton 6/30 The Crescent, Roseneath,
Wellington $25,000.00
The New Zealand National Party Jones Young Trust Account P O Box 189,
Shortland St, Auckland $100,000.00
The New Zealand National Party Russell McVeagh Trust Account P O Box
8, Auckland $50,000.00
The New Zealand National Party Sky City Management Ltd P O Box 6443,
Wellesley, Auckland $60,000.00
The New Zealand National Party The Ruahine Trust P O Box 2244,
Auckland $249,948.00
The New Zealand National Party The Waitemata Trust P O Box 2244,
Auckland $1,254,845.00
The New Zealand National Party Toll Holdings Ltd P O Box 92138
Auckland $25,000.00
The New Zealand National Party Westpac Banking Corp P O Box 934, Auckland

Can you spell 'laundering', Sue? Interesting that Toll and Westpac
donated to both parties. The difference is that the Nats' donations are
hidden behind trusts and whatnots. The Labour party ones are clearly
marked 'anonymous'. Don't you remember the shady shenanigans that
resulted in the SFO investigating the Nat party donations a few years
back and grudgingly giving them an 'all clear"?

Cheers,

Cliff
John B
2006-09-05 11:48:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Enkidu
Can you spell 'laundering', Sue? Interesting that Toll and
Westpac donated to both parties. The difference is that the
Nats' donations are hidden behind trusts and whatnots. The
Labour party ones are clearly marked 'anonymous'. Don't you
remember the shady shenanigans that resulted in the SFO
investigating the Nat party donations a few years back and
grudgingly giving them an 'all clear"?
As usual you miss the point and throw in a red-herring.

The point is that Labour is being hypocritical. Simple. And it's
true, they are.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Enkidu
2006-09-05 21:31:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by John B
Post by Enkidu
Can you spell 'laundering', Sue? Interesting that Toll and
Westpac donated to both parties. The difference is that the
Nats' donations are hidden behind trusts and whatnots. The
Labour party ones are clearly marked 'anonymous'. Don't you
remember the shady shenanigans that resulted in the SFO
investigating the Nat party donations a few years back and
grudgingly giving them an 'all clear"?
As usual you miss the point and throw in a red-herring.
The point is that Labour is being hypocritical. Simple. And it's
true, they are.
And you miss the point too. The point is that National is being
hypocritical, and it is true, they are. In fact, while the Labour party
anonymous donations 'open' anonymous donation and, for example, the SFO
could easily find out who the donation were from (there is always a
paper trail - in case of questions) the National party donations are
through trust funds and holdings. This means that such rules as an
individual can only donate so much anonymously to a party can be easily
circumvented.

Or did you think that the 'anonymous' donations actually came as bundles
of unmarked notes? 'anonymous' means that the donor did not want their
names publicized.

Cheers,

Cliff
John B
2006-09-05 22:05:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Enkidu
Post by John B
Post by Enkidu
Can you spell 'laundering', Sue? Interesting that Toll and
Westpac donated to both parties. The difference is that the
Nats' donations are hidden behind trusts and whatnots. The
Labour party ones are clearly marked 'anonymous'. Don't you
remember the shady shenanigans that resulted in the SFO
investigating the Nat party donations a few years back and
grudgingly giving them an 'all clear"?
As usual you miss the point and throw in a red-herring.
The point is that Labour is being hypocritical. Simple. And
it's true, they are.
And you miss the point too. The point is that National is being
hypocritical, and it is true, they are.
Rubbish. Labour claimed National received anonymous donations and
that it is wrong. Yet they receive the same.

There is no crime to receive donations. Yet Labour are trying to
make out National are wrong in doing it yet they themselves are
right for doing the exact same thing.

That's hypocrisy.
Post by Enkidu
In fact, while the Labour party anonymous donations 'open'
anonymous donation and, for example, the SFO could easily find
out who the donation were from (there is always a paper trail -
in case of questions) the National party donations are through
trust funds and holdings. This means that such rules as an
individual can only donate so much anonymously to a party can
be easily circumvented.
So? NOT illegal or immoral.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Brian Dooley
2006-09-06 09:29:08 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 09:31:04 +1200, Enkidu
Post by Enkidu
Post by John B
Post by Enkidu
Can you spell 'laundering', Sue? Interesting that Toll and
Westpac donated to both parties. The difference is that the
Nats' donations are hidden behind trusts and whatnots. The
Labour party ones are clearly marked 'anonymous'. Don't you
remember the shady shenanigans that resulted in the SFO
investigating the Nat party donations a few years back and
grudgingly giving them an 'all clear"?
As usual you miss the point and throw in a red-herring.
The point is that Labour is being hypocritical. Simple. And it's
true, they are.
And you miss the point too. The point is that National is being
hypocritical, and it is true, they are. In fact, while the Labour party
anonymous donations 'open' anonymous donation and, for example, the SFO
could easily find out who the donation were from (there is always a
paper trail - in case of questions) the National party donations are
through trust funds and holdings. This means that such rules as an
individual can only donate so much anonymously to a party can be easily
circumvented.
Or did you think that the 'anonymous' donations actually came as bundles
of unmarked notes? 'anonymous' means that the donor did not want their
names publicized.
Which is what happened with the Prendergast scam. It was
challenged in court but the challenge fell down on the two
possible meanings of 'anonymous'.
--
Brian Dooley

Wellington New Zealand
Sue Bilstein
2006-09-05 20:58:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Enkidu
Post by Sue Bilstein
2005 donations - what's all this then?
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $25,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $50,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $40,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $40,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $20,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $50,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $20,000.00
No big surprise - Helen's a hypocrite.
Duh! They are donations as declared according to law. What are these, then?
Donations declared according to law. Sorry, I need to spell it out for
you - but that's OK, I'm used to it by now.

Helen shrieks that National receives anonymous donations. While Labour
receives anonymous donations. Helen is a hypocrite, and a pitfully
unsuccessful liar and smearer.
Post by Enkidu
The New Zealand National Party Bell Gully Trust Account P O Box 4199,
Auckland $62,000.00
The New Zealand National Party Buddle Findlay Trust Account P O Box
1433, Auckland $25,000.00
The New Zealand National Party J Benton 6/30 The Crescent, Roseneath,
Wellington $25,000.00
The New Zealand National Party Jones Young Trust Account P O Box 189,
Shortland St, Auckland $100,000.00
The New Zealand National Party Russell McVeagh Trust Account P O Box
8, Auckland $50,000.00
The New Zealand National Party Sky City Management Ltd P O Box 6443,
Wellesley, Auckland $60,000.00
The New Zealand National Party The Ruahine Trust P O Box 2244,
Auckland $249,948.00
The New Zealand National Party The Waitemata Trust P O Box 2244,
Auckland $1,254,845.00
The New Zealand National Party Toll Holdings Ltd P O Box 92138
Auckland $25,000.00
The New Zealand National Party Westpac Banking Corp P O Box 934, Auckland
Can you spell 'laundering', Sue?
I can spell "hysteria", Enkidu. An anonymous donation has the same
moral value when received by Labour as by National.

BTW, four of the donations above are not via trust account, hence not
anonymous: J Benton, Sky City, Toll and Westpac. You fucked up there,
poor hysteric.
Post by Enkidu
Interesting that Toll and Westpac
donated to both parties.
Big companies often do this. Your point?
Post by Enkidu
The difference is that the Nats' donations are
hidden behind trusts and whatnots. The Labour party ones are clearly
marked 'anonymous'.
That's right, National receives anonymous donations; Labour receives
anonymous donations; Helen is a lying hypocrite.
Post by Enkidu
Don't you remember the shady shenanigans that
resulted in the SFO investigating the Nat party donations a few years
back and grudgingly giving them an 'all clear"?
Yes, I recall, as you say, that National were found not guilty of
allegations of wrong-doing.
John B
2006-09-05 21:16:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue Bilstein
Post by Enkidu
Don't you remember the shady shenanigans that
resulted in the SFO investigating the Nat party donations a
few years
back and grudgingly giving them an 'all clear"?
Yes, I recall, as you say, that National were found not guilty
of
allegations of wrong-doing.
The SFO is not and "emotional" organisation. Your use of the word
grudgingly plays against you, Caveman.

Grudging has nothing to do with the facts.

A very weak-arsed attempt by you to make National appear as if
they got away with something illegal.

FACT: The did nothing wrong!

FACT: Helen has done something wrong. She's a liar and a thief.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Sue Bilstein
2006-09-05 21:51:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by John B
Post by Sue Bilstein
Post by Enkidu
Don't you remember the shady shenanigans that
resulted in the SFO investigating the Nat party donations a
few years
back and grudgingly giving them an 'all clear"?
Yes, I recall, as you say, that National were found not guilty of
allegations of wrong-doing.
The SFO is not and "emotional" organisation. Your use of the word
grudgingly plays against you, Caveman.
Grudging has nothing to do with the facts.
A very weak-arsed attempt by you to make National appear as if
they got away with something illegal.
FACT: The did nothing wrong!
FACT: Helen has done something wrong. She's a liar and a thief.
A couple of suggestions.

1) If you're replying to Enkidu, do so on his post, not on mine.

2) If you want to see him squirm, leave him to me. I observe that he's
quite happy to reply to your posts as an easy-out when I've put him on
the spot.
John B
2006-09-05 22:20:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue Bilstein
A couple of suggestions.
1) If you're replying to Enkidu, do so on his post, not on
mine.
yeah yeah.
Post by Sue Bilstein
2) If you want to see him squirm, leave him to me. I observe
that he's
quite happy to reply to your posts as an easy-out when I've put him on
the spot.
Go for it. I have work to do anyway.

I'll check back later and see how well you are doing at making
him squirm.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Sue Bilstein
2006-09-06 09:50:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by John B
Post by Sue Bilstein
A couple of suggestions.
1) If you're replying to Enkidu, do so on his post, not on
mine.
yeah yeah.
Post by Sue Bilstein
2) If you want to see him squirm, leave him to me. I observe
that he's
quite happy to reply to your posts as an easy-out when I've put him on
the spot.
Go for it. I have work to do anyway.
I'll check back later and see how well you are doing at making
him squirm.
Enkidu must have been called away on urgent business. Pity.
John B
2006-09-06 10:41:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue Bilstein
Post by John B
Post by Sue Bilstein
A couple of suggestions.
1) If you're replying to Enkidu, do so on his post, not on
mine.
yeah yeah.
Post by Sue Bilstein
2) If you want to see him squirm, leave him to me. I observe that he's
quite happy to reply to your posts as an easy-out when I've
put
him on
the spot.
Go for it. I have work to do anyway.
I'll check back later and see how well you are doing at making
him squirm.
Enkidu must have been called away on urgent business. Pity.
Can't see any squirming.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Enkidu
2006-09-06 21:06:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by John B
Post by Sue Bilstein
Post by John B
Post by Sue Bilstein
A couple of suggestions.
1) If you're replying to Enkidu, do so on his post, not on
mine.
yeah yeah.
Post by Sue Bilstein
2) If you want to see him squirm, leave him to me. I observe
that he's quite happy to reply to your posts as an easy-out
when I've put him on the spot.
Go for it. I have work to do anyway.
I'll check back later and see how well you are doing at making
him squirm.
Enkidu must have been called away on urgent business. Pity.
Can't see any squirming.
So I missed something. I've got a life.

Cheers,

Cliff
Sue Bilstein
2006-09-06 21:17:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue Bilstein
Post by Enkidu
So I missed something. I've got a life.
So you're a coward. But we knew that already.
Post by Sue Bilstein
Post by Enkidu
Post by Sue Bilstein
2005 donations - what's all this then?
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $25,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $50,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $40,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $40,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $20,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $50,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $20,000.00
No big surprise - Helen's a hypocrite.
Duh! They are donations as declared according to law. What are these, then?
Donations declared according to law. Sorry, I need to spell it out for
you - but that's OK, I'm used to it by now.
Helen shrieks that National receives anonymous donations. While Labour
receives anonymous donations. Helen is a hypocrite, and a pitfully
unsuccessful liar and smearer.
Post by Enkidu
The New Zealand National Party Bell Gully Trust Account P O Box 4199,
Auckland $62,000.00
The New Zealand National Party Buddle Findlay Trust Account P O Box
1433, Auckland $25,000.00
The New Zealand National Party J Benton 6/30 The Crescent, Roseneath,
Wellington $25,000.00
The New Zealand National Party Jones Young Trust Account P O Box 189,
Shortland St, Auckland $100,000.00
The New Zealand National Party Russell McVeagh Trust Account P O Box
8, Auckland $50,000.00
The New Zealand National Party Sky City Management Ltd P O Box 6443,
Wellesley, Auckland $60,000.00
The New Zealand National Party The Ruahine Trust P O Box 2244,
Auckland $249,948.00
The New Zealand National Party The Waitemata Trust P O Box 2244,
Auckland $1,254,845.00
The New Zealand National Party Toll Holdings Ltd P O Box 92138
Auckland $25,000.00
The New Zealand National Party Westpac Banking Corp P O Box 934, Auckland
Can you spell 'laundering', Sue?
I can spell "hysteria", Enkidu. An anonymous donation has the same
moral value when received by Labour as by National.
BTW, four of the donations above are not via trust account, hence not
anonymous: J Benton, Sky City, Toll and Westpac. You fucked up there,
poor hysteric.
Post by Enkidu
Interesting that Toll and Westpac
donated to both parties.
Big companies often do this. Your point?
Post by Enkidu
The difference is that the Nats' donations are
hidden behind trusts and whatnots. The Labour party ones are clearly
marked 'anonymous'.
That's right, National receives anonymous donations; Labour receives
anonymous donations; Helen is a lying hypocrite.
Post by Enkidu
Don't you remember the shady shenanigans that
resulted in the SFO investigating the Nat party donations a few years
back and grudgingly giving them an 'all clear"?
Yes, I recall, as you say, that National were found not guilty of
allegations of wrong-doing.
John B
2006-09-07 00:52:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue Bilstein
Post by Enkidu
So I missed something. I've got a life.
So you're a coward. But we knew that already.
He's done a runner, the poor bitter and twisted burk.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Enkidu
2006-09-07 09:14:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by John B
Post by Sue Bilstein
Post by Enkidu
So I missed something. I've got a life.
So you're a coward. But we knew that already.
He's done a runner, the poor bitter and twisted burk.
You wish!

Cheers,

Cliff
Enkidu
2006-09-07 09:12:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue Bilstein
Post by Sue Bilstein
Post by Enkidu
So I missed something. I've got a life.
So you're a coward. But we knew that already.
Post by Sue Bilstein
Post by Enkidu
Post by Sue Bilstein
2005 donations - what's all this then?
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $25,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $50,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $40,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $40,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $20,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $50,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $20,000.00
No big surprise - Helen's a hypocrite.
Duh! They are donations as declared according to law. What are these, then?
Donations declared according to law. Sorry, I need to spell it out for
you - but that's OK, I'm used to it by now.
Helen shrieks that National receives anonymous donations. While Labour
receives anonymous donations. Helen is a hypocrite, and a pitfully
unsuccessful liar and smearer.
Post by Enkidu
The New Zealand National Party Bell Gully Trust Account P O Box 4199,
Auckland $62,000.00
The New Zealand National Party Buddle Findlay Trust Account P O Box
1433, Auckland $25,000.00
The New Zealand National Party J Benton 6/30 The Crescent, Roseneath,
Wellington $25,000.00
The New Zealand National Party Jones Young Trust Account P O Box 189,
Shortland St, Auckland $100,000.00
The New Zealand National Party Russell McVeagh Trust Account P O Box
8, Auckland $50,000.00
The New Zealand National Party Sky City Management Ltd P O Box 6443,
Wellesley, Auckland $60,000.00
The New Zealand National Party The Ruahine Trust P O Box 2244,
Auckland $249,948.00
The New Zealand National Party The Waitemata Trust P O Box 2244,
Auckland $1,254,845.00
The New Zealand National Party Toll Holdings Ltd P O Box 92138
Auckland $25,000.00
The New Zealand National Party Westpac Banking Corp P O Box 934, Auckland
Can you spell 'laundering', Sue?
I can spell "hysteria", Enkidu. An anonymous donation has the same
moral value when received by Labour as by National.
BTW, four of the donations above are not via trust account, hence not
anonymous: J Benton, Sky City, Toll and Westpac. You fucked up there,
poor hysteric.
Post by Enkidu
Interesting that Toll and Westpac
donated to both parties.
Big companies often do this. Your point?
Post by Enkidu
The difference is that the Nats' donations are
hidden behind trusts and whatnots. The Labour party ones are clearly
marked 'anonymous'.
That's right, National receives anonymous donations; Labour receives
anonymous donations; Helen is a lying hypocrite.
Post by Enkidu
Don't you remember the shady shenanigans that
resulted in the SFO investigating the Nat party donations a few years
back and grudgingly giving them an 'all clear"?
Yes, I recall, as you say, that National were found not guilty of
allegations of wrong-doing.
The difference between the two sorts of 'anonymous' donations is that
the Labour Party knows about the donors. They just don't publish the
names, by request of the donor. However the National Party's 'anonymous'
donations are purposely hidden behind trusts and holding accounts. The
National Party can claim that they don't know the actual names of the
donors (which I don't believe). So on the one hand (National) you have
anonymous donations that are claimed to be anonymous, and on the other
(Labour) you have donations that are shown as anonymous but for which
the donor is actually known.

So which anonymous do you prefer? Anonymous where the actual donor's
identity is intentionally obfuscated (National) or anonymous where the
donor is known but prefers not to have their name published (Labour).

You are wrong when you say that National were "found not guilty of
allegations of wrong-doing". Firstly, the SFO is not a court and
secondly all that they said was that *no evidence could be found* that
there was wrong-doing. That's a long way from actually asserting that
there *was* no wrong-doing.

Cheers,

Cliff
Sue Bilstein
2006-09-07 10:47:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Enkidu
Post by Sue Bilstein
Post by Enkidu
The difference is that the Nats' donations are
hidden behind trusts and whatnots. The Labour party ones are clearly
marked 'anonymous'.
That's right, National receives anonymous donations; Labour receives
anonymous donations; Helen is a lying hypocrite.
Post by Enkidu
Don't you remember the shady shenanigans that
resulted in the SFO investigating the Nat party donations a few years
back and grudgingly giving them an 'all clear"?
Yes, I recall, as you say, that National were found not guilty of
allegations of wrong-doing.
The difference between the two sorts of 'anonymous' donations is that
the Labour Party knows about the donors. They just don't publish the
names, by request of the donor. However the National Party's 'anonymous'
donations are purposely hidden behind trusts and holding accounts. The
National Party can claim that they don't know the actual names of the
donors (which I don't believe). So on the one hand (National) you have
anonymous donations that are claimed to be anonymous, and on the other
(Labour) you have donations that are shown as anonymous but for which
the donor is actually known.
So you reckon that National knows the identity of all its donors. And
Labour knows the identity of all its donors. And some of the
donations to both parties are anonymous. Again, you yourself are
telling us that both parties receive anonymous donations.

And yet Helen shrieks - and you shriek - about anonymous donations to
National. You are both hypocrites; either that, or terminally FTH.
Really, I can't tell which, and don't greatly care.
Post by Enkidu
So which anonymous do you prefer? Anonymous where the actual donor's
identity is intentionally obfuscated (National) or anonymous where the
donor is known but prefers not to have their name published (Labour).
In both cases the identity of the donor is concealed at the donor's
request. Do get a clue.
Post by Enkidu
You are wrong when you say that National were "found not guilty of
allegations of wrong-doing". Firstly, the SFO is not a court and
secondly all that they said was that *no evidence could be found* that
there was wrong-doing. That's a long way from actually asserting that
there *was* no wrong-doing.
Certainly it is in your eyes.
Enkidu
2006-09-08 08:33:21 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 21:12:50 +1200, Enkidu
Post by Enkidu
Post by Sue Bilstein
The difference is that the Nats' donations are hidden behind
trusts and whatnots. The Labour party ones are clearly marked
'anonymous'.
That's right, National receives anonymous donations; Labour
receives anonymous donations; Helen is a lying hypocrite.
Don't you remember the shady shenanigans that resulted in the
SFO investigating the Nat party donations a few years back
and grudgingly giving them an 'all clear"?
Yes, I recall, as you say, that National were found not guilty
of allegations of wrong-doing.
The difference between the two sorts of 'anonymous' donations is
that the Labour Party knows about the donors. They just don't
publish the names, by request of the donor. However the National
Party's 'anonymous' donations are purposely hidden behind trusts
and holding accounts. The National Party can claim that they don't
know the actual names of the donors (which I don't believe). So on
the one hand (National) you have anonymous donations that are
claimed to be anonymous, and on the other (Labour) you have
donations that are shown as anonymous but for which the donor is
actually known.
So you reckon that National knows the identity of all its donors. And
Labour knows the identity of all its donors. And some of the
donations to both parties are anonymous. Again, you yourself are
telling us that both parties receive anonymous donations.
No, no, no. Logic is not your strong point is it, Sue?

The Labour party receives donations the donors of which are known. In
what sense are those anonymous? The donors prefer to be unknown but
their identity is knowable to those who have to know (the party and
anyone who might need to know if matters have to be investigated).

The National party, on the other receives donation the donors of which
are unknown because they are hidden behind trust funds and such like.
These are truly anonymous. If matters have to be investigated (as did
happen) then there is no way to know the identity of the donors.
And yet Helen shrieks - and you shriek - about anonymous donations to
National. You are both hypocrites; either that, or terminally FTH.
Really, I can't tell which, and don't greatly care.
Sue, Sue, Sue. You rant and rave about Labour when the biggest weasels
around are National. Biblical references are not popular these days but
Matthew Chapter 7, verses 3 to 5 are appropriate to your case.
Post by Enkidu
So which anonymous do you prefer? Anonymous where the actual
donor's identity is intentionally obfuscated (National) or
anonymous where the donor is known but prefers not to have their
name published (Labour).
In both cases the identity of the donor is concealed at the donor's
request. Do get a clue.
Yes, you are correct. But you miss the point that Labour know who their
donors are, and National (in theory) don't. This means National's donors
are truly anonymous, whereas Labour's are known to the Labour party. So
Labour's donor are NOT truly anonymous.
Post by Enkidu
You are wrong when you say that National were "found not guilty of
allegations of wrong-doing". Firstly, the SFO is not a court and
secondly all that they said was that *no evidence could be found*
that there was wrong-doing. That's a long way from actually
asserting that there *was* no wrong-doing.
Certainly it is in your eyes.
And in the eyes of anyone not blinded by bigotry.

Cheers,

Cliff
John B
2006-09-08 08:52:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Enkidu
No, no, no. Logic is not your strong point is it, Sue?
The Labour party receives donations the donors of which are
known. In what sense are those anonymous? The donors prefer to
be unknown but their identity is knowable to those who have to
know (the party and anyone who might need to know if matters
have to be investigated).
The National party, on the other receives donation the donors
of which are unknown because they are hidden behind trust funds
and such like. These are truly anonymous. If matters have to be
investigated (as did happen) then there is no way to know the
identity of the donors.
So no one, absolutely no one knows who has donated money to the
trust which is then donated to National? Is that right?

Jeeez, you are an idiot.

The cold hard cash just arrives in an envelope through the post
does it? No accounting or anything?

Must be God that donates the money then.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Enkidu
2006-09-08 10:47:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by John B
Post by Enkidu
No, no, no. Logic is not your strong point is it, Sue?
The Labour party receives donations the donors of which are
known. In what sense are those anonymous? The donors prefer to
be unknown but their identity is knowable to those who have to
know (the party and anyone who might need to know if matters
have to be investigated).
The National party, on the other receives donation the donors
of which are unknown because they are hidden behind trust funds
and such like. These are truly anonymous. If matters have to be
investigated (as did happen) then there is no way to know the
identity of the donors.
So no one, absolutely no one knows who has donated money to the
trust which is then donated to National? Is that right?
Yes, that is correct. Officially. In fact they (Nat officials) know damn
well who donated the money and who expects payback should National win
the election. But officially, they don't. That is what is so perverted
about the system. At least, if the unions donate money to Labour, it is
visible and above board. With National it is invisble and sub rosa.

Cheers,

Cliff
John B
2006-09-08 11:34:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Enkidu
Post by John B
Post by Enkidu
No, no, no. Logic is not your strong point is it, Sue?
The Labour party receives donations the donors of which are
known. In what sense are those anonymous? The donors prefer
to be unknown but their identity is knowable to those who
have to know (the party and anyone who might need to know if
matters have to be investigated).
The National party, on the other receives donation the donors
of which are unknown because they are hidden behind trust
funds and such like. These are truly anonymous. If matters
have to be investigated (as did happen) then there is no way
to know the identity of the donors.
So no one, absolutely no one knows who has donated money to
the trust which is then donated to National? Is that right?
Yes, that is correct. Officially. In fact they (Nat officials)
know damn well who donated the money and who expects payback
should National win the election. But officially, they don't.
That is what is so perverted about the system. At least, if the
unions donate money to Labour, it is visible and above board.
With National it is invisble and sub rosa.
When you say Labour knows, and National knows, then what's the
difference?

And, specifically, which Labour and National people know?

Think about it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Enkidu
2006-09-09 00:14:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by John B
Post by Enkidu
Post by John B
Post by Enkidu
No, no, no. Logic is not your strong point is it, Sue?
The Labour party receives donations the donors of which are
known. In what sense are those anonymous? The donors prefer
to be unknown but their identity is knowable to those who
have to know (the party and anyone who might need to know if
matters have to be investigated).
The National party, on the other receives donation the donors
of which are unknown because they are hidden behind trust
funds and such like. These are truly anonymous. If matters
have to be investigated (as did happen) then there is no way
to know the identity of the donors.
So no one, absolutely no one knows who has donated money to
the trust which is then donated to National? Is that right?
Yes, that is correct. Officially. In fact they (Nat officials)
know damn well who donated the money and who expects payback
should National win the election. But officially, they don't.
That is what is so perverted about the system. At least, if the
unions donate money to Labour, it is visible and above board.
With National it is invisble and sub rosa.
When you say Labour knows, and National knows, then what's the
difference?
The difference is that National pretends NOT to know.
Post by John B
And, specifically, which Labour and National people know?
Those at the top and the accountants.
Post by John B
Think about it.
Strange advice from a person, whose only reactions are knee-jerk reactions.

Cheers,

Cliff
John B
2006-09-09 01:27:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Enkidu
Post by John B
When you say Labour knows, and National knows, then what's the
difference?
The difference is that National pretends NOT to know.
So why do Labour list their anonymous donations? To "pretend"
they *don't* know? That's rather dishonest isn't it?
Post by Enkidu
Post by John B
And, specifically, which Labour and National people know?
Those at the top and the accountants.
So it's the same for both Parties, then.
Post by Enkidu
Post by John B
Think about it.
Strange advice from a person, whose only reactions are
knee-jerk reactions.
Yeah right. You are the one trying to justify Labours hypocrisy.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Enkidu
2006-09-09 02:01:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by John B
Post by Enkidu
Post by John B
When you say Labour knows, and National knows, then what's the
difference?
The difference is that National pretends NOT to know.
So why do Labour list their anonymous donations? To "pretend"
they *don't* know? That's rather dishonest isn't it?
It is a legal requirement to list donations over $10,000 (I believe). It
is a legal requirement, so how can it be dishonest?

Cheers,

Cliff
Sue Bilstein
2006-09-08 10:08:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Enkidu
On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 21:12:50 +1200, Enkidu
Post by Enkidu
The difference between the two sorts of 'anonymous' donations is
that the Labour Party knows about the donors. They just don't
publish the names, by request of the donor. However the National
Party's 'anonymous' donations are purposely hidden behind trusts
and holding accounts. The National Party can claim that they don't
know the actual names of the donors (which I don't believe). So on
the one hand (National) you have anonymous donations that are
claimed to be anonymous, and on the other (Labour) you have
donations that are shown as anonymous but for which the donor is
actually known.
So you reckon that National knows the identity of all its donors. And
Labour knows the identity of all its donors. And some of the
donations to both parties are anonymous. Again, you yourself are
telling us that both parties receive anonymous donations.
No, no, no. Logic is not your strong point is it, Sue?
The Labour party receives donations the donors of which are known. In
what sense are those anonymous? The donors prefer to be unknown but
their identity is knowable to those who have to know (the party and
anyone who might need to know if matters have to be investigated).
The National party, on the other receives donation the donors of which
are unknown because they are hidden behind trust funds and such like.
These are truly anonymous. If matters have to be investigated (as did
happen) then there is no way to know the identity of the donors.
And yet you said, above, that you believe National know the identity
of the donors. Which is it? Or do you practice believing two
contradictory things at the same time?

Frankly, I don't greatly care myself. They could collect donations in
a drop box. So what?

If Parliament votes to ban anonymous donations, that's fine too. It
will have the effect of reducing the amount of donations to all
parties - who cares.

But Labour also proposes to put party financing on the public tit, and
that I absolutely oppose. No way do I want my taxes to finance the
Labour Party. I daresay you don't want to donate your tax to
National, either.
Post by Enkidu
And yet Helen shrieks - and you shriek - about anonymous donations to
National. You are both hypocrites; either that, or terminally FTH.
Really, I can't tell which, and don't greatly care.
Sue, Sue, Sue. You rant and rave about Labour when the biggest weasels
around are National. Biblical references are not popular these days but
Matthew Chapter 7, verses 3 to 5 are appropriate to your case.
Cliffie, Cliffie, Cliffie. I am not ranting; Helen is ranting. I do
not give a toss about anonymous donations to political parties. I
loathe lying hypocrites, though.
Post by Enkidu
Post by Enkidu
So which anonymous do you prefer? Anonymous where the actual
donor's identity is intentionally obfuscated (National) or
anonymous where the donor is known but prefers not to have their
name published (Labour).
In both cases the identity of the donor is concealed at the donor's
request. Do get a clue.
Yes, you are correct. But you miss the point that Labour know who their
donors are, and National (in theory) don't. This means National's donors
are truly anonymous, whereas Labour's are known to the Labour party. So
Labour's donor are NOT truly anonymous.
You can agonise about the finer points of your imagined scenario as
much as you like. I really, really, really don't care about anonymous
donations. But shrieking hypocrisy disgusts me.
Post by Enkidu
Post by Enkidu
You are wrong when you say that National were "found not guilty of
allegations of wrong-doing". Firstly, the SFO is not a court and
secondly all that they said was that *no evidence could be found*
that there was wrong-doing. That's a long way from actually
asserting that there *was* no wrong-doing.
Certainly it is in your eyes.
And in the eyes of anyone not blinded by bigotry.
Unutterable irony. I suggest you add a blindfold to your blinkers in
case some light gets in.
Enkidu
2006-09-08 11:03:01 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 20:33:21 +1200, Enkidu
Post by Enkidu
On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 21:12:50 +1200, Enkidu
Post by Enkidu
The difference between the two sorts of 'anonymous' donations
is that the Labour Party knows about the donors. They just
don't publish the names, by request of the donor. However the
National Party's 'anonymous' donations are purposely hidden
behind trusts and holding accounts. The National Party can
claim that they don't know the actual names of the donors
(which I don't believe). So on the one hand (National) you have
anonymous donations that are claimed to be anonymous, and on
the other (Labour) you have donations that are shown as
anonymous but for which the donor is actually known.
So you reckon that National knows the identity of all its donors.
And Labour knows the identity of all its donors. And some of the
donations to both parties are anonymous. Again, you yourself
are telling us that both parties receive anonymous donations.
No, no, no. Logic is not your strong point is it, Sue?
The Labour party receives donations the donors of which are known.
In what sense are those anonymous? The donors prefer to be unknown
but their identity is knowable to those who have to know (the party
and anyone who might need to know if matters have to be
investigated).
The National party, on the other receives donation the donors of
which are unknown because they are hidden behind trust funds and
such like. These are truly anonymous. If matters have to be
investigated (as did happen) then there is no way to know the
identity of the donors.
And yet you said, above, that you believe National know the identity
of the donors. Which is it? Or do you practice believing two
contradictory things at the same time?
I believe that they do (unofficially) while they don't (officially). It
is not me that practices believing two contradictory things at the same
time (like the White Queen in Alice). It's National!
Frankly, I don't greatly care myself. They could collect donations
in a drop box. So what?
You don't care? So why start the thread?
If Parliament votes to ban anonymous donations, that's fine too. It
will have the effect of reducing the amount of donations to all
parties - who cares.
But Labour also proposes to put party financing on the public tit,
and that I absolutely oppose. No way do I want my taxes to finance
the Labour Party. I daresay you don't want to donate your tax to
National, either.
I do not see taxes as a finance on either party. Taxes do not go to a
political party and never will. There's a grand old term for what you
are doing Sue, and that FUD, and it is all yours and you are welcome to it.
Post by Enkidu
And yet Helen shrieks - and you shriek - about anonymous
donations to National. You are both hypocrites; either that, or
terminally FTH. Really, I can't tell which, and don't greatly
care.
Sue, Sue, Sue. You rant and rave about Labour when the biggest
weasels around are National. Biblical references are not popular
these days but Matthew Chapter 7, verses 3 to 5 are appropriate to
your case.
Cliffie, Cliffie, Cliffie. I am not ranting; Helen is ranting. I do
not give a toss about anonymous donations to political parties. I
loathe lying hypocrites, though.
So do I, Sue, so do I. If you do not care, why the venomous attacks on
my perfectly logical points of view? Why the vitriol? Could it be that
you are running out of arguments? Did you not initiate this thread?
Post by Enkidu
Post by Enkidu
So which anonymous do you prefer? Anonymous where the actual
donor's identity is intentionally obfuscated (National) or
anonymous where the donor is known but prefers not to have
their name published (Labour).
In both cases the identity of the donor is concealed at the
donor's request. Do get a clue.
Yes, you are correct. But you miss the point that Labour know who
their donors are, and National (in theory) don't. This means
National's donors are truly anonymous, whereas Labour's are known
to the Labour party. So Labour's donor are NOT truly anonymous.
You can agonise about the finer points of your imagined scenario as
much as you like. I really, really, really don't care about
anonymous donations. But shrieking hypocrisy disgusts me.
And me, and me. Why does it conjure the letters "S" and "B"? "S" and "B"?

Cheers,

Cliff
John B
2006-09-08 11:38:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue Bilstein
Frankly, I don't greatly care myself. They could collect
donations
in a drop box. So what?
Because it's ABOUT Clark's blatant hypocrisy, which Sue abhors,
as do 81% of NZ'rs.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Enkidu
2006-09-09 00:18:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by John B
Post by Sue Bilstein
Frankly, I don't greatly care myself. They could collect
donations
in a drop box. So what?
Because it's ABOUT Clark's blatant hypocrisy, which Sue abhors,
as do 81% of NZ'rs.
The hypocrisy is National's, which claims not to know where their
donations come from. Labour has never claimed this. Think, John, think.
The Labour party donations flagged as 'anonymous' are known to the
Labour hierarchy and therefore they are not truly anonymous.

Cheers,

Cliff
John B
2006-09-09 01:29:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Enkidu
Post by John B
Post by Sue Bilstein
Frankly, I don't greatly care myself. They could collect
donations
in a drop box. So what?
Because it's ABOUT Clark's blatant hypocrisy, which Sue
abhors, as do 81% of NZ'rs.
The hypocrisy is National's, which claims not to know where
their donations come from. Labour has never claimed this.
Think, John, think. The Labour party donations flagged as
'anonymous' are known to the Labour hierarchy and therefore
they are not truly anonymous.
Same as National.

But who the fuck cares whether anonymous means anonymous or not?
Clark's a hypocrite.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Enkidu
2006-09-09 02:32:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by John B
Clark's a hypocrite.
My daughter once had a doll that would come up with a few phrases if you
pressed its back. I'm not sure there's a market for John B dolls that
emit a few chosen phrases - "Clark's a hypocrite", "Taxes are theft",
"Lying Commie Bastard". It might have a small amusement value but it
would have to compete with the RedBaiter doll.

Also a lifesized version of such a doll would be indistinguishable from
the real thing.

Cheers,

Cliff
Brian Dooley
2006-09-10 00:44:42 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 14:32:10 +1200, Enkidu
Post by Enkidu
Post by John B
Clark's a hypocrite.
My daughter once had a doll that would come up with a few phrases if you
pressed its back. I'm not sure there's a market for John B dolls that
emit a few chosen phrases - "Clark's a hypocrite", "Taxes are theft",
"Lying Commie Bastard". It might have a small amusement value but it
would have to compete with the RedBaiter doll.
Also a lifesized version of such a doll would be indistinguishable from
the real thing.
A sort of Turing doll?
--
Brian Dooley

Wellington New Zealand
Sue Bilstein
2006-09-08 23:54:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Enkidu
On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 20:33:21 +1200, Enkidu
Post by Enkidu
The National party, on the other receives donation the donors of
which are unknown because they are hidden behind trust funds and
such like. These are truly anonymous. If matters have to be
investigated (as did happen) then there is no way to know the
identity of the donors.
And yet you said, above, that you believe National know the identity
of the donors. Which is it? Or do you practice believing two
contradictory things at the same time?
I believe that they do (unofficially) while they don't (officially). It
is not me that practices believing two contradictory things at the same
time (like the White Queen in Alice). It's National!
Thank you for this insight into your unusual thought processes.
Post by Enkidu
Frankly, I don't greatly care myself. They could collect donations
in a drop box. So what?
You don't care? So why start the thread?
My God, you mean to say you have no idea what we have been talking
about for the last three days?

I find this very hard to believe. IIRC you are some kind of Polytech
lecturer. Surely you could not perform this job with an IQ of 70.
Post by Enkidu
If Parliament votes to ban anonymous donations, that's fine too. It
will have the effect of reducing the amount of donations to all
parties - who cares.
But Labour also proposes to put party financing on the public tit,
and that I absolutely oppose. No way do I want my taxes to finance
the Labour Party. I daresay you don't want to donate your tax to
National, either.
I do not see taxes as a finance on either party. Taxes do not go to a
political party and never will. There's a grand old term for what you
are doing Sue, and that FUD, and it is all yours and you are welcome to it.
Labour propose to fund political campaigns from the public purse, on
the Australian model. If they are able to carry this through, you
will be contributing to National's campaign expenses. Enjoy.
Post by Enkidu
Post by Enkidu
Post by Sue Bilstein
And yet Helen shrieks - and you shriek - about anonymous
donations to National. You are both hypocrites; either that, or
terminally FTH. Really, I can't tell which, and don't greatly
care.
Sue, Sue, Sue. You rant and rave about Labour when the biggest
weasels around are National. Biblical references are not popular
these days but Matthew Chapter 7, verses 3 to 5 are appropriate to
your case.
Cliffie, Cliffie, Cliffie. I am not ranting; Helen is ranting. I do
not give a toss about anonymous donations to political parties. I
loathe lying hypocrites, though.
So do I, Sue, so do I. If you do not care, why the venomous attacks on
my perfectly logical points of view? Why the vitriol? Could it be that
you are running out of arguments? Did you not initiate this thread?
Once again, you pretend not to understand what this thread has been
about; and yet you have been posting on it for three days. It may
well be that you have had no idea. That would explain how
infuriatingly dim you've been throughout.
Post by Enkidu
Post by Enkidu
Post by Sue Bilstein
Post by Enkidu
So which anonymous do you prefer? Anonymous where the actual
donor's identity is intentionally obfuscated (National) or
anonymous where the donor is known but prefers not to have
their name published (Labour).
In both cases the identity of the donor is concealed at the
donor's request. Do get a clue.
Yes, you are correct. But you miss the point that Labour know who
their donors are, and National (in theory) don't. This means
National's donors are truly anonymous, whereas Labour's are known
to the Labour party. So Labour's donor are NOT truly anonymous.
You can agonise about the finer points of your imagined scenario as
much as you like. I really, really, really don't care about
anonymous donations. But shrieking hypocrisy disgusts me.
And me, and me. Why does it conjure the letters "S" and "B"? "S" and "B"?
Maybe because you are suffering from early-onset Alzheimer's? Or
possibly because you are carrying deliberate obtuseness to an extreme
never before attempted on this group.

This post, from this same thread, states my point in a nutshell. Of
course you have already read it, but if that was more than three
minutes ago, you may have forgotten.

http://groups.google.co.nz/group/nz.general/msg/ff44af4abf0f0dbd?dmode=source&hl=en
Roger
2006-09-07 10:53:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Enkidu
You are wrong when you say that National were "found not guilty of
allegations of wrong-doing". Firstly, the SFO is not a court and
secondly all that they said was that *no evidence could be found* that
there was wrong-doing. That's a long way from actually asserting that
there *was* no wrong-doing.
Cheers,
Cliff
Helen Clark and the politburo might have dreams of turning NZ into
Stalin type utopia.
Fortunately they haven't succeeded
One is still innocent until proven guilty.
Enkidu
2006-09-08 10:04:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Enkidu
You are wrong when you say that National were "found not guilty of
allegations of wrong-doing". Firstly, the SFO is not a court and
secondly all that they said was that *no evidence could be found* that
there was wrong-doing. That's a long way from actually asserting that
there *was* no wrong-doing.
Helen Clark and the politburo might have dreams of turning NZ into
Stalin type utopia.
Fortunately they haven't succeeded
One is still innocent until proven guilty.
One may be found innocent, but may in fact be guilty. It's the price we
pay for erring on the positive side.

Cheers,

Cliff
Roger
2006-09-08 10:39:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Enkidu
Post by Roger
Post by Enkidu
You are wrong when you say that National were "found not guilty of
allegations of wrong-doing". Firstly, the SFO is not a court and
secondly all that they said was that *no evidence could be found* that
there was wrong-doing. That's a long way from actually asserting that
there *was* no wrong-doing.
Helen Clark and the politburo might have dreams of turning NZ into
Stalin type utopia.
Fortunately they haven't succeeded
One is still innocent until proven guilty.
One may be found innocent, but may in fact be guilty. It's the price we
pay for erring on the positive side.
Cheers,
Cliff
You are right. Clark is guilty as sin. But as she is as slippy as a
eel. She might be found innocent.

Roger
Enkidu
2006-09-08 11:04:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Enkidu
Post by Roger
Post by Enkidu
You are wrong when you say that National were "found not guilty of
allegations of wrong-doing". Firstly, the SFO is not a court and
secondly all that they said was that *no evidence could be found* that
there was wrong-doing. That's a long way from actually asserting that
there *was* no wrong-doing.
Helen Clark and the politburo might have dreams of turning NZ into
Stalin type utopia.
Fortunately they haven't succeeded
One is still innocent until proven guilty.
One may be found innocent, but may in fact be guilty. It's the price we
pay for erring on the positive side.
You are right. Clark is guilty as sin. But as she is as slippy as a
eel. She might be found innocent.
Nice one, Rog. Let your prejudices shine through!

Cheers,

Cliff
Brian Dooley
2006-09-06 09:23:42 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 22:56:42 +1200, Enkidu
<***@com.cliffp.com> wrote:

snip---
Post by Enkidu
Can you spell 'laundering', Sue? Interesting that Toll and Westpac
donated to both parties. The difference is that the Nats' donations are
hidden behind trusts and whatnots. The Labour party ones are clearly
marked 'anonymous'. Don't you remember the shady shenanigans that
resulted in the SFO investigating the Nat party donations a few years
back and grudgingly giving them an 'all clear"?
Cliff. Do you remember that Kerry Prendergast pulled this stunt
at the last(?) mayoral elections. Everybody else thought
anonymous meant that she didn't know who the donations were from,
therefore they were anonymous, but she said that she knew but she
wasn't going to tell, therefore they were anonymous - and she got
away with it.
--
Brian Dooley

Wellington New Zealand
george
2006-09-05 20:39:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue Bilstein
Post by Phil
Post by Sue Bilstein
I'm expecting to see a complete list of everyone who has given money to
the Labour Party - since the lead-up to the 1999 campaign will do for
starters.
Date of donation, Donor name, Address and Amount.
Where is this published, anybody know? Tulia? Mike Parsons?
Party donations under $10k don't have to be disclosed.
The rest, can be found at
<http://election.govt.nz/parties/donations_summary.html>
Thanks Phil.
2005 donations - what's all this then?
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $25,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $50,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $40,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $40,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $20,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $50,000.00
New Zealand Labour Party Anonymous $20,000.00
No big surprise - Helen's a hypocrite.
How do you know a politicians lying ?
their mouth's moving.........
-Newsman-
2006-09-07 10:19:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue Bilstein
I'm expecting to see a complete list of everyone who has given money to
the Labour Party - since the lead-up to the 1999 campaign will do for
starters.
Date of donation, Donor name, Address and Amount.
Where is this published, anybody know? Tulia? Mike Parsons?
Presumably you have similar list of doners and supporters of the
National Party to hand, so could you publish that as well, please?
Sue Bilstein
2006-09-07 10:48:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by -Newsman-
Post by Sue Bilstein
I'm expecting to see a complete list of everyone who has given money to
the Labour Party - since the lead-up to the 1999 campaign will do for
starters.
Date of donation, Donor name, Address and Amount.
Where is this published, anybody know? Tulia? Mike Parsons?
Presumably you have similar list of doners and supporters of the
National Party to hand, so could you publish that as well, please?
It's on the same link that Phil gave us, Newsbot.
-Newsman-
2006-09-07 11:35:33 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 22:48:38 +1200, Sue Bilstein
Post by Sue Bilstein
Post by -Newsman-
Post by Sue Bilstein
I'm expecting to see a complete list of everyone who has given money to
the Labour Party - since the lead-up to the 1999 campaign will do for
starters.
Date of donation, Donor name, Address and Amount.
Where is this published, anybody know? Tulia? Mike Parsons?
Presumably you have similar list of doners and supporters of the
National Party to hand, so could you publish that as well, please?
It's on the same link that Phil gave us, Newsbot.
Ah, thanks.

Mmmm...interesting.

Someone out there surpise me and individually name each person behind
The Waitamata Trust.

Especially as it seems those behind the Trust may have contributed up
to as much as two-thirds of the total donations to the National Party
in 2005, which single contribution is, in turn, about 35% more than
the total published funding of the Labout Party in that same year.

Again, The Waitamata Trust alone contributed approximately $1.25
million to the National Party, more than 4 times the total sum given
to labour by seven anonymous donors.

Compared to those anonymous Labour tiddlers, that Waitamata lot really
meant business, didn't they?

But is democracy best served by such powerful Trust arrangements, and
also by anonymity, irrespective of party?
Sue Bilstein
2006-09-07 20:56:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by -Newsman-
On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 22:48:38 +1200, Sue Bilstein
Post by Sue Bilstein
Post by -Newsman-
Post by Sue Bilstein
I'm expecting to see a complete list of everyone who has given money to
the Labour Party - since the lead-up to the 1999 campaign will do for
starters.
Date of donation, Donor name, Address and Amount.
Where is this published, anybody know? Tulia? Mike Parsons?
Presumably you have similar list of doners and supporters of the
National Party to hand, so could you publish that as well, please?
It's on the same link that Phil gave us, Newsbot.
Ah, thanks.
Mmmm...interesting.
Not particularly. It simply shows that both National and Labour
receive anonymous donations. But only Helen Clark is shrieking about
National's anonymous donations. She's a liar and a hypocrite; we knew
that already.
Post by -Newsman-
Someone out there surpise me and individually name each person behind
The Waitamata Trust.
Especially as it seems those behind the Trust may have contributed up
to as much as two-thirds of the total donations to the National Party
in 2005, which single contribution is, in turn, about 35% more than
the total published funding of the Labout Party in that same year.
Again, The Waitamata Trust alone contributed approximately $1.25
million to the National Party, more than 4 times the total sum given
to labour by seven anonymous donors.
Compared to those anonymous Labour tiddlers, that Waitamata lot really
meant business, didn't they?
What a surprise. The party that is attacking free enterprise gets
fewer donations from business than the party which promotes it.
Post by -Newsman-
But is democracy best served by such powerful Trust arrangements, and
also by anonymity, irrespective of party?
If Helen can pass legislation banning anonymous donations, all parties
will get less money, as those who want to be anonymous will refuse to
donate. it still won't fix her party's anti-enterprise image.
-Newsman-
2006-09-07 22:11:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue Bilstein
Post by -Newsman-
On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 22:48:38 +1200, Sue Bilstein
Post by Sue Bilstein
Post by -Newsman-
Post by Sue Bilstein
I'm expecting to see a complete list of everyone who has given money to
the Labour Party - since the lead-up to the 1999 campaign will do for
starters.
Date of donation, Donor name, Address and Amount.
Where is this published, anybody know? Tulia? Mike Parsons?
Presumably you have similar list of doners and supporters of the
National Party to hand, so could you publish that as well, please?
It's on the same link that Phil gave us, Newsbot.
Ah, thanks.
Mmmm...interesting.
Not particularly. It simply shows that both National and Labour
receive anonymous donations. But only Helen Clark is shrieking about
National's anonymous donations. She's a liar and a hypocrite; we knew
that already.
And National's hands are squeaky clean? Of *course* they are Sue!
Post by Sue Bilstein
Post by -Newsman-
Someone out there surpise me and individually name each person behind
The Waitamata Trust.
Especially as it seems those behind the Trust may have contributed up
to as much as two-thirds of the total donations to the National Party
in 2005, which single contribution is, in turn, about 35% more than
the total published funding of the Labout Party in that same year.
Again, The Waitamata Trust alone contributed approximately $1.25
million to the National Party, more than 4 times the total sum given
to labour by seven anonymous donors.
Compared to those anonymous Labour tiddlers, that Waitamata lot really
meant business, didn't they?
What a surprise. The party that is attacking free enterprise gets
fewer donations from business than the party which promotes it.
Thats' a hoot!

The party that so critically depends on a secret Trust and a wealthy
secret society (Exclusive Bretheren - and Brash patently lied about
their involvement, too) for the support of its election funding has
only desperaton for an ally. And, for all of that million-plus
dollars, the irony it still came to nought anyway!
Post by Sue Bilstein
Post by -Newsman-
But is democracy best served by such powerful Trust arrangements, and
also by anonymity, irrespective of party?
If Helen can pass legislation banning anonymous donations, all parties
will get less money, as those who want to be anonymous will refuse to
donate.
Which is just fine. The less spent on political donations, the more
"honest" the electoral system might become.
Post by Sue Bilstein
It still won't fix her party's anti-enterprise image.
A distraction. I'm addressing the matter of the probity of party
funding methods, not the image of Labour as perceived by third
parties. so here it is again:

Is democracy best served by such powerful Trust arrangements, and
also by anonymity, irrespective of party?

What say you?
John B
2006-09-08 02:46:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by -Newsman-
Is democracy best served by such powerful Trust arrangements,
and
also by anonymity, irrespective of party?
Fuck democracy!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Sue Bilstein
2006-09-08 10:27:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by -Newsman-
Post by Sue Bilstein
Post by -Newsman-
Ah, thanks.
Mmmm...interesting.
Not particularly. It simply shows that both National and Labour
receive anonymous donations. But only Helen Clark is shrieking about
National's anonymous donations. She's a liar and a hypocrite; we knew
that already.
And National's hands are squeaky clean? Of *course* they are Sue!
Well, their hands are clean of shrieking hypocrisy about anonymous
donations. And of spending $450K of taxpayers money on
electioneering, acknowledging that this should be funded by the party,
promising to pay it back after the election, and then welshing on the
pledge. And of 150km/h motorcades through Canterbury suburbs to get
la Presidenta to the rugby. And of exploiting constituents for cheap
and free labour in return for immigration services. And of sharp
practice leading to the bankruptcy of business partners.

Did you have some other kind of dirtiness in mind? Do be specific.
Post by -Newsman-
Post by Sue Bilstein
Post by -Newsman-
Someone out there surpise me and individually name each person behind
The Waitamata Trust.
Especially as it seems those behind the Trust may have contributed up
to as much as two-thirds of the total donations to the National Party
in 2005, which single contribution is, in turn, about 35% more than
the total published funding of the Labout Party in that same year.
Again, The Waitamata Trust alone contributed approximately $1.25
million to the National Party, more than 4 times the total sum given
to labour by seven anonymous donors.
Compared to those anonymous Labour tiddlers, that Waitamata lot really
meant business, didn't they?
What a surprise. The party that is attacking free enterprise gets
fewer donations from business than the party which promotes it.
Thats' a hoot!
The party that so critically depends on a secret Trust and a wealthy
secret society (Exclusive Bretheren - and Brash patently lied about
their involvement, too) for the support of its election funding has
only desperaton for an ally. And, for all of that million-plus
dollars, the irony it still came to nought anyway!
You lot do bang on about the Brethren. Why don't you throw a fit
about the Sensible Sentencing Trust? They did exactly the same kind
of election ads. "Vote for the party that will prevent violent
offenders from getting parole", IIRC. That meant National.

Why don't you object to the unions who publish a heap of pro-Labour
campaign material? Some of them actually said "Vote Labour", which
means they should have been included in Labour's campaign budget, but
I don't believe they were.

But there's no hope of honesty or consistency from you and your like
non-minds.
Post by -Newsman-
Post by Sue Bilstein
Post by -Newsman-
But is democracy best served by such powerful Trust arrangements, and
also by anonymity, irrespective of party?
If Helen can pass legislation banning anonymous donations, all parties
will get less money, as those who want to be anonymous will refuse to
donate.
Which is just fine. The less spent on political donations, the more
"honest" the electoral system might become.
I agree, that would not be a problem.

However, Helen also proposes to slap the political parties on the
public tit. I assume you don't like the idea of your taxes going to
fund National's campaign. But quite possible to succeed in
Parliament, as all MPs will have a motive to sink their snouts deeper
in the trough. The only party that may oppose it is National, which
has supporters who are willing to fund it.
Post by -Newsman-
Post by Sue Bilstein
It still won't fix her party's anti-enterprise image.
A distraction. I'm addressing the matter of the probity of party
funding methods, not the image of Labour as perceived by third
Is democracy best served by such powerful Trust arrangements, and
also by anonymity, irrespective of party?
What say you?
I have no objection to anonymous donations - to political parties,
charities or anything else.

If you're moaning about Labour's low level of funding, consider that
they should try to increase their enrolled membership and make their
policies more compelling to donors. There's a financial downside to
being the party of the social workers, school teachers and university
lecturers, as well as the disadvantage that they think up such
appalling policies.

Given the spending limits on election campaigns, even a poor party
like Labour can compete with a well-funded party like National. If
they steal hundreds of thousand of our money for their campaign, they
can even get the winning advantage.
Enkidu
2006-09-08 09:58:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sue Bilstein
Post by -Newsman-
On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 22:48:38 +1200, Sue Bilstein
Post by Sue Bilstein
Post by -Newsman-
Post by Sue Bilstein
I'm expecting to see a complete list of everyone who has
given money to the Labour Party - since the lead-up to the
1999 campaign will do for starters.
Date of donation, Donor name, Address and Amount.
Where is this published, anybody know? Tulia? Mike Parsons?
Presumably you have similar list of doners and supporters of
the National Party to hand, so could you publish that as well,
please?
It's on the same link that Phil gave us, Newsbot.
Ah, thanks.
Mmmm...interesting.
Not particularly. It simply shows that both National and Labour
receive anonymous donations. But only Helen Clark is shrieking about
National's anonymous donations. She's a liar and a hypocrite; we
knew that already.
No. Those who accuse Labour of receiving anonymous donations are those
who are the hypocrits. Those donations are NOT anonymous to the
receivers (ie the Labour Party accountants) whereas the donations made
through trust funds to National ARE truly anonymous, since the
recipients do not know the donors. That is fact.

Cheers,

Cliff
Sue Bilstein
2006-09-08 11:03:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Enkidu
Post by Sue Bilstein
Not particularly. It simply shows that both National and Labour
receive anonymous donations. But only Helen Clark is shrieking about
National's anonymous donations. She's a liar and a hypocrite; we
knew that already.
No. Those who accuse Labour of receiving anonymous donations are those
who are the hypocrits. Those donations are NOT anonymous to the
receivers (ie the Labour Party accountants) whereas the donations made
through trust funds to National ARE truly anonymous, since the
recipients do not know the donors. That is fact.
I don't "accuse" Labour of receiving anonymous donations. I simply
point out the perfectly bleeding obvious, that they get them, just as
National does, and thus have no grounds to object to them.
John B
2006-09-08 11:26:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Enkidu
No. Those who accuse Labour of receiving anonymous donations
are those who are the hypocrits. Those donations are NOT
anonymous to the receivers (ie the Labour Party accountants)
whereas the donations made through trust funds to National ARE
truly anonymous, since the recipients do not know the donors.
That is fact.
The donors are the Trusts.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Enkidu
2006-09-09 00:13:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by John B
Post by Enkidu
No. Those who accuse Labour of receiving anonymous donations
are those who are the hypocrits. Those donations are NOT
anonymous to the receivers (ie the Labour Party accountants)
whereas the donations made through trust funds to National ARE
truly anonymous, since the recipients do not know the donors.
That is fact.
The donors are the Trusts.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Cheers,

Cliff
-Newsman-
2006-09-09 00:44:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by John B
Post by Enkidu
No. Those who accuse Labour of receiving anonymous donations
are those who are the hypocrits. Those donations are NOT
anonymous to the receivers (ie the Labour Party accountants)
whereas the donations made through trust funds to National ARE
truly anonymous, since the recipients do not know the donors.
That is fact.
The donors are the Trusts.
Which are run by trustees.

Sp who are the trustees?
John B
2006-09-09 01:30:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by -Newsman-
Post by John B
Post by Enkidu
No. Those who accuse Labour of receiving anonymous donations
are those who are the hypocrits. Those donations are NOT
anonymous to the receivers (ie the Labour Party accountants)
whereas the donations made through trust funds to National
ARE
truly anonymous, since the recipients do not know the donors.
That is fact.
The donors are the Trusts.
Which are run by trustees.
Sp who are the trustees?
Why is this relevant to Clark's hypocrisy?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
John B
2006-09-08 11:28:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Enkidu
No. Those who accuse Labour of receiving anonymous donations
are those who are the hypocrits. Those donations are NOT
anonymous to the receivers (ie the Labour Party accountants)
whereas the donations made through trust funds to National ARE
truly anonymous, since the recipients do not know the donors.
That is fact.
You are just jealous that National get so much money. All you are
trying to do is rationalise a way to stop them getting so much.
You are scared shitless of them. You may have to work for a
living.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...