Discussion:
CoL are donkey deep in "Dirty Politics"
Add Reply
JohnO
2020-02-13 19:42:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/409467/winston-peters-on-photos-of-reporters-we-took-the-photographs

So... WhaleOil and Simon Lusk are involved in running dark stuff for NZFirst, and that's propping up the government.

And not even the Greens have a thing to say.

Because they are filthy sticking corrupt hypocrites. Every one of them.
John Bowes
2020-02-13 21:11:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JohnO
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/409467/winston-peters-on-photos-of-reporters-we-took-the-photographs
So... WhaleOil and Simon Lusk are involved in running dark stuff for NZFirst, and that's propping up the government.
And not even the Greens have a thing to say.
Because they are filthy sticking corrupt hypocrites. Every one of them.
The stench is becoming unbearable. Trouble is the country has to many village idiots like Rich who'll vote them back in given half a chance!
Crash
2020-02-13 23:17:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 13:11:57 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by JohnO
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/409467/winston-peters-on-photos-of-reporters-we-took-the-photographs
So... WhaleOil and Simon Lusk are involved in running dark stuff for NZFirst, and that's propping up the government.
And not even the Greens have a thing to say.
Because they are filthy sticking corrupt hypocrites. Every one of them.
The stench is becoming unbearable. Trouble is the country has to many village idiots like Rich who'll vote them back in given half a chance!
Incorrect John. Trouble is that National and ACT don't seem able to
bring this forward as an issue to turn voters away from NZF. Neither
can they bring forward the corruption issues between the Provincial
Growth Fund and a fund applicant called NZ Future Forest Products
(whose directors include Winston's partner, lawyer and lawyer's son).
NZFFP is owned by a Limited Partnership whose partners are not a
public record.


--
Crash McBash
John Bowes
2020-02-14 00:39:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 13:11:57 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by JohnO
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/409467/winston-peters-on-photos-of-reporters-we-took-the-photographs
So... WhaleOil and Simon Lusk are involved in running dark stuff for NZFirst, and that's propping up the government.
And not even the Greens have a thing to say.
Because they are filthy sticking corrupt hypocrites. Every one of them.
The stench is becoming unbearable. Trouble is the country has to many village idiots like Rich who'll vote them back in given half a chance!
Incorrect John. Trouble is that National and ACT don't seem able to
bring this forward as an issue to turn voters away from NZF. Neither
can they bring forward the corruption issues between the Provincial
Growth Fund and a fund applicant called NZ Future Forest Products
(whose directors include Winston's partner, lawyer and lawyer's son).
NZFFP is owned by a Limited Partnership whose partners are not a
public record.
--
Crash McBash
A valid point and one of the reasons National wll not get my party vote this year. However I'll stick with my comment because it is true ;)
Rich80105
2020-02-14 01:26:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 13:11:57 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by JohnO
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/409467/winston-peters-on-photos-of-reporters-we-took-the-photographs
So... WhaleOil and Simon Lusk are involved in running dark stuff for NZFirst, and that's propping up the government.
And not even the Greens have a thing to say.
Because they are filthy sticking corrupt hypocrites. Every one of them.
The stench is becoming unbearable. Trouble is the country has to many village idiots like Rich who'll vote them back in given half a chance!
Incorrect John. Trouble is that National and ACT don't seem able to
bring this forward as an issue to turn voters away from NZF. Neither
can they bring forward the corruption issues between the Provincial
Growth Fund and a fund applicant called NZ Future Forest Products
(whose directors include Winston's partner, lawyer and lawyer's son).
NZFFP is owned by a Limited Partnership whose partners are not a
public record.
I think some of National's accusations have come through to the
consciousness of the public, but too often they are being seen to have
fired blanks - and been merely malicious, or to be merely
distractions, as in this case, for conduct for which they appear to be
at least as guilty as those they are cynically accusing of misconduct.
The thought that National has returned to Dirty Tricks, using some of
the same players or at least Whale-oil sympathisers to try and attavk
another political party for having copied National's legal structures
for donations indicates that they have not learned from the recent
past; such cynical maniplation using unethical or at least
questionable practices to accuse NZ First of doing what they have had
four of their people charges with offences does not even seem
particularly intelligent.

It has been clear for some time that the structure National had was
owing used to hide donations - both those of large amounts and those
from "investors" where publicity would ahve been unwelcome - were
taing advantage of weaknesses in the law. It was also cler that
Winston Peters had adopted the same structure - as has often been
said, he learned well how to attract and mmnage donations while he was
a member of the National Party.

NZ First however does not have the size of National's war chest - they
live from election to election, whereas National can carry sizeable
assets forward. NZ First have taken to "lending" money from the Trust
to the Party, and rolling those loans over. Get the accounting wrong
and there can be problems. We don't know, but I suspect that may be a
significant difference between the two parties. The other issue is
whether donors really knew that they wer not donating to the Party,
but to a slush fund. National have been doing it for years and have
professional staff to dot all the i's and cross all the t's, although
as we saw from Jamie-Lee Ross, loose lips can sink ships . . .

The reality is that National regard criminal charges as a 'cost of
normal business' and have procedures to distance themseves quickly
from anyone accused - while probably giving assistance with legal
costs. If charges cannot be proven, that is seen as equivalent to no
wrong having been done, such is the lack of respect for our laws by
that party. In their cynical way, however mere accusations are seen as
damning when they relate to others - false equivalence has never been
seen as a problem for National's propoganda specialists.
Crash
2020-02-14 04:36:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 13:11:57 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by JohnO
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/409467/winston-peters-on-photos-of-reporters-we-took-the-photographs
So... WhaleOil and Simon Lusk are involved in running dark stuff for NZFirst, and that's propping up the government.
And not even the Greens have a thing to say.
Because they are filthy sticking corrupt hypocrites. Every one of them.
The stench is becoming unbearable. Trouble is the country has to many village idiots like Rich who'll vote them back in given half a chance!
Incorrect John. Trouble is that National and ACT don't seem able to
bring this forward as an issue to turn voters away from NZF. Neither
can they bring forward the corruption issues between the Provincial
Growth Fund and a fund applicant called NZ Future Forest Products
(whose directors include Winston's partner, lawyer and lawyer's son).
NZFFP is owned by a Limited Partnership whose partners are not a
public record.
I think some of National's accusations have come through to the
consciousness of the public, but too often they are being seen to have
fired blanks - and been merely malicious, or to be merely
distractions, as in this case, for conduct for which they appear to be
at least as guilty as those they are cynically accusing of misconduct.
The thought that National has returned to Dirty Tricks, using some of
the same players or at least Whale-oil sympathisers to try and attavk
another political party for having copied National's legal structures
for donations indicates that they have not learned from the recent
past; such cynical maniplation using unethical or at least
questionable practices to accuse NZ First of doing what they have had
four of their people charges with offences does not even seem
particularly intelligent.
Rich that is simply laughable in the context of the journalist's
photos saga that the OP cited.
Post by Rich80105
It has been clear for some time that the structure National had was
owing used to hide donations - both those of large amounts and those
from "investors" where publicity would ahve been unwelcome - were
taing advantage of weaknesses in the law.
Careful Rich - that in my view is slanderous and absolutely untrue.
There is no 'investor' who has made a donation to National that has
gone to the foundation. The existence of the National Foundation is
public knowledge and donations to the foundation are reported as
political donations (ie as if they were donations to the National
Party). You do not seem to understand any of this and wantonly accuse
National of wrongdoing purely because it suits your doggedly
anti-National agenda.
Post by Rich80105
It was also cler that
Winston Peters had adopted the same structure - as has often been
said, he learned well how to attract and mmnage donations while he was
a member of the National Party.
Adopting the same structure is simply copying an idea. This idea is
in fact being copied by a number of organisations - which includes
most if not all charitable trusts.

However NZF did not copy National:

https://www.nationalfoundation.org.nz/

Where is the NZ First Foundation website? Who are the trustees? Does
NZF (the party) declare donations to the Foundation as political
donations? Does NZF (the foundation) operate as a capital-protected
fund as the National Foundation does (do you even understand the
significance of this?)?

None of the answers to the above questions are the same for both. One
therefore cannot reasonably be described as a copy of the other.
Post by Rich80105
NZ First however does not have the size of National's war chest - they
live from election to election, whereas National can carry sizeable
assets forward. N
How do you know any of this? Cite please, for both parties.
Post by Rich80105
NZ First have taken to "lending" money from the Trust
to the Party, and rolling those loans over. Get the accounting wrong
and there can be problems. We don't know, but I suspect that may be a
significant difference between the two parties. The other issue is
whether donors really knew that they wer not donating to the Party,
but to a slush fund. National have been doing it for years and have
professional staff to dot all the i's and cross all the t's, although
as we saw from Jamie-Lee Ross, loose lips can sink ships . . .
You keep relying on the actions of someone who clearly lost the plot
and subsequently required mental health treatment.

The SFO is involved clearly because the Electoral Commission suspects
that donations intended for NZF (the party) went to NZF (the
foundation) without the donor's knowledge and were not declared as if
they were to a political party. There has never been any suggestion
that the same has happened with National - or are you accusing the
Electoral Commission of unjustly singling out NZF?

[I don't usually snip off-topic text but in this thread at this time I
have got beyond saturation point]


--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-02-14 05:59:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 13:11:57 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by JohnO
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/409467/winston-peters-on-photos-of-reporters-we-took-the-photographs
So... WhaleOil and Simon Lusk are involved in running dark stuff for NZFirst, and that's propping up the government.
And not even the Greens have a thing to say.
Because they are filthy sticking corrupt hypocrites. Every one of them.
The stench is becoming unbearable. Trouble is the country has to many village idiots like Rich who'll vote them back in given half a chance!
Incorrect John. Trouble is that National and ACT don't seem able to
bring this forward as an issue to turn voters away from NZF. Neither
can they bring forward the corruption issues between the Provincial
Growth Fund and a fund applicant called NZ Future Forest Products
(whose directors include Winston's partner, lawyer and lawyer's son).
NZFFP is owned by a Limited Partnership whose partners are not a
public record.
I think some of National's accusations have come through to the
consciousness of the public, but too often they are being seen to have
fired blanks - and been merely malicious, or to be merely
distractions, as in this case, for conduct for which they appear to be
at least as guilty as those they are cynically accusing of misconduct.
The thought that National has returned to Dirty Tricks, using some of
the same players or at least Whale-oil sympathisers to try and attavk
another political party for having copied National's legal structures
for donations indicates that they have not learned from the recent
past; such cynical maniplation using unethical or at least
questionable practices to accuse NZ First of doing what they have had
four of their people charges with offences does not even seem
particularly intelligent.
Rich that is simply laughable in the context of the journalist's
photos saga that the OP cited.
Post by Rich80105
It has been clear for some time that the structure National had was
owing used to hide donations - both those of large amounts and those
from "investors" where publicity would ahve been unwelcome - were
taing advantage of weaknesses in the law.
Careful Rich - that in my view is slanderous and absolutely untrue.
There is no 'investor' who has made a donation to National that has
gone to the foundation. The existence of the National Foundation is
public knowledge and donations to the foundation are reported as
political donations (ie as if they were donations to the National
Party). You do not seem to understand any of this and wantonly accuse
National of wrongdoing purely because it suits your doggedly
anti-National agenda.
Post by Rich80105
It was also cler that
Winston Peters had adopted the same structure - as has often been
said, he learned well how to attract and mmnage donations while he was
a member of the National Party.
Adopting the same structure is simply copying an idea. This idea is
in fact being copied by a number of organisations - which includes
most if not all charitable trusts.
https://www.nationalfoundation.org.nz/
Where is the NZ First Foundation website? Who are the trustees? Does
NZF (the party) declare donations to the Foundation as political
donations? Does NZF (the foundation) operate as a capital-protected
fund as the National Foundation does (do you even understand the
significance of this?)?
None of the answers to the above questions are the same for both. One
therefore cannot reasonably be described as a copy of the other.
Post by Rich80105
NZ First however does not have the size of National's war chest - they
live from election to election, whereas National can carry sizeable
assets forward. N
How do you know any of this? Cite please, for both parties.
Post by Rich80105
NZ First have taken to "lending" money from the Trust
to the Party, and rolling those loans over. Get the accounting wrong
and there can be problems. We don't know, but I suspect that may be a
significant difference between the two parties. The other issue is
whether donors really knew that they wer not donating to the Party,
but to a slush fund. National have been doing it for years and have
professional staff to dot all the i's and cross all the t's, although
as we saw from Jamie-Lee Ross, loose lips can sink ships . . .
You keep relying on the actions of someone who clearly lost the plot
and subsequently required mental health treatment.
The SFO is involved clearly because the Electoral Commission suspects
that donations intended for NZF (the party) went to NZF (the
foundation) without the donor's knowledge and were not declared as if
they were to a political party. There has never been any suggestion
that the same has happened with National - or are you accusing the
Electoral Commission of unjustly singling out NZF?
[I don't usually snip off-topic text but in this thread at this time I
have got beyond saturation point]
I should have realised you are incapable of addressing more than a few
simle sentences at a time. Others may not have a greater intellectual
capacity than a rock . . .

Just listen to the video here:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119127222/serious-fraud-office-filing-criminal-charges-in-relation-to-national-party-donations

There is a suggestion that a large donation was being split to avoid
the identity of the donor being publicised - andBridges later
indicated that the National Party intended to return those donations
of $15.000 each - we dont know if they have done that . . .
Crash
2020-02-15 04:39:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 13:11:57 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by JohnO
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/409467/winston-peters-on-photos-of-reporters-we-took-the-photographs
So... WhaleOil and Simon Lusk are involved in running dark stuff for NZFirst, and that's propping up the government.
And not even the Greens have a thing to say.
Because they are filthy sticking corrupt hypocrites. Every one of them.
The stench is becoming unbearable. Trouble is the country has to many village idiots like Rich who'll vote them back in given half a chance!
Incorrect John. Trouble is that National and ACT don't seem able to
bring this forward as an issue to turn voters away from NZF. Neither
can they bring forward the corruption issues between the Provincial
Growth Fund and a fund applicant called NZ Future Forest Products
(whose directors include Winston's partner, lawyer and lawyer's son).
NZFFP is owned by a Limited Partnership whose partners are not a
public record.
I think some of National's accusations have come through to the
consciousness of the public, but too often they are being seen to have
fired blanks - and been merely malicious, or to be merely
distractions, as in this case, for conduct for which they appear to be
at least as guilty as those they are cynically accusing of misconduct.
The thought that National has returned to Dirty Tricks, using some of
the same players or at least Whale-oil sympathisers to try and attavk
another political party for having copied National's legal structures
for donations indicates that they have not learned from the recent
past; such cynical maniplation using unethical or at least
questionable practices to accuse NZ First of doing what they have had
four of their people charges with offences does not even seem
particularly intelligent.
Rich that is simply laughable in the context of the journalist's
photos saga that the OP cited.
Post by Rich80105
It has been clear for some time that the structure National had was
owing used to hide donations - both those of large amounts and those
from "investors" where publicity would ahve been unwelcome - were
taing advantage of weaknesses in the law.
Careful Rich - that in my view is slanderous and absolutely untrue.
There is no 'investor' who has made a donation to National that has
gone to the foundation. The existence of the National Foundation is
public knowledge and donations to the foundation are reported as
political donations (ie as if they were donations to the National
Party). You do not seem to understand any of this and wantonly accuse
National of wrongdoing purely because it suits your doggedly
anti-National agenda.
Post by Rich80105
It was also cler that
Winston Peters had adopted the same structure - as has often been
said, he learned well how to attract and mmnage donations while he was
a member of the National Party.
Adopting the same structure is simply copying an idea. This idea is
in fact being copied by a number of organisations - which includes
most if not all charitable trusts.
https://www.nationalfoundation.org.nz/
Where is the NZ First Foundation website? Who are the trustees? Does
NZF (the party) declare donations to the Foundation as political
donations? Does NZF (the foundation) operate as a capital-protected
fund as the National Foundation does (do you even understand the
significance of this?)?
None of the answers to the above questions are the same for both. One
therefore cannot reasonably be described as a copy of the other.
Post by Rich80105
NZ First however does not have the size of National's war chest - they
live from election to election, whereas National can carry sizeable
assets forward. N
How do you know any of this? Cite please, for both parties.
Post by Rich80105
NZ First have taken to "lending" money from the Trust
to the Party, and rolling those loans over. Get the accounting wrong
and there can be problems. We don't know, but I suspect that may be a
significant difference between the two parties. The other issue is
whether donors really knew that they wer not donating to the Party,
but to a slush fund. National have been doing it for years and have
professional staff to dot all the i's and cross all the t's, although
as we saw from Jamie-Lee Ross, loose lips can sink ships . . .
You keep relying on the actions of someone who clearly lost the plot
and subsequently required mental health treatment.
The SFO is involved clearly because the Electoral Commission suspects
that donations intended for NZF (the party) went to NZF (the
foundation) without the donor's knowledge and were not declared as if
they were to a political party. There has never been any suggestion
that the same has happened with National - or are you accusing the
Electoral Commission of unjustly singling out NZF?
[I don't usually snip off-topic text but in this thread at this time I
have got beyond saturation point]
I should have realised you are incapable of addressing more than a few
simle sentences at a time. Others may not have a greater intellectual
capacity than a rock . . .
In all my years of posting here, you have never stooped to this level
of insult with me before. Why now? It seems you have lost your cool
completely and lashed out. Shame on you.
Post by Rich80105
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119127222/serious-fraud-office-filing-criminal-charges-in-relation-to-national-party-donations
There is a suggestion that a large donation was being split to avoid
the identity of the donor being publicised - andBridges later
indicated that the National Party intended to return those donations
of $15.000 each - we dont know if they have done that . . .
The article you cite covers alleged mishandling of a donation to the
National Party. As the National Foundation is not named it seems that
it is not involved.

This is trivial compared to the level of allegations in respect of
NZF (the party) and NZF (the foundation):

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/408786/donations-and-declarations-the-nz-first-foundation-explained

As a result of this revelation it appears that NZF have launched a
vendetta against RNZ journalists:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/409467/winston-peters-on-photos-of-reporters-we-took-the-photographs

This the cite JohnO gave in his original post.


--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-02-16 01:57:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 13:11:57 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by JohnO
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/409467/winston-peters-on-photos-of-reporters-we-took-the-photographs
So... WhaleOil and Simon Lusk are involved in running dark stuff for NZFirst, and that's propping up the government.
And not even the Greens have a thing to say.
Because they are filthy sticking corrupt hypocrites. Every one of them.
The stench is becoming unbearable. Trouble is the country has to many village idiots like Rich who'll vote them back in given half a chance!
Incorrect John. Trouble is that National and ACT don't seem able to
bring this forward as an issue to turn voters away from NZF. Neither
can they bring forward the corruption issues between the Provincial
Growth Fund and a fund applicant called NZ Future Forest Products
(whose directors include Winston's partner, lawyer and lawyer's son).
NZFFP is owned by a Limited Partnership whose partners are not a
public record.
I think some of National's accusations have come through to the
consciousness of the public, but too often they are being seen to have
fired blanks - and been merely malicious, or to be merely
distractions, as in this case, for conduct for which they appear to be
at least as guilty as those they are cynically accusing of misconduct.
The thought that National has returned to Dirty Tricks, using some of
the same players or at least Whale-oil sympathisers to try and attavk
another political party for having copied National's legal structures
for donations indicates that they have not learned from the recent
past; such cynical maniplation using unethical or at least
questionable practices to accuse NZ First of doing what they have had
four of their people charges with offences does not even seem
particularly intelligent.
Rich that is simply laughable in the context of the journalist's
photos saga that the OP cited.
Peters has not helped himself with a changing story over the
photographs - he has claimed that his party took the photos but later
claimed that they had been sent to him and he had released them to the
media. What is clear is that NZ First has had some party staff unhappy
about being asked to sign off on legal statements that they are
concerned may not be true. An invetigation into that matter alone is
justified, but the involvement of individuals who have prevously been
aligned to National in peddling stories about NZ First justifies
caution in presuming the worst.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
It has been clear for some time that the structure National had was
owing used to hide donations - both those of large amounts and those
from "investors" where publicity would ahve been unwelcome - were
taing advantage of weaknesses in the law.
Careful Rich - that in my view is slanderous and absolutely untrue.
There is no 'investor' who has made a donation to National that has
gone to the foundation. The existence of the National Foundation is
public knowledge and donations to the foundation are reported as
political donations (ie as if they were donations to the National
Party). You do not seem to understand any of this and wantonly accuse
National of wrongdoing purely because it suits your doggedly
anti-National agenda.
We have yet to learn exactly what the four charges are in relation to;
all we know is that they were in relation to political donations. We
do know that National have made changes in the last few years to how
their trust is used, but there have been a number of reports in the
past that large donations were being conceled - and the video of a
discussion between Ross and Bridges, together with four legal charges,
indicates that those days may not be over. Some have tried to distance
Bridges from these charges on the grounds that the National PArty
itelf was not charged - but that is a false defence if as has been
claimed it would not be possible under law to charge any political
party - it is not an entity that can be charged; any offences would be
chaged to those individuals responsible for specific matters working
for the party; and in at leaat some cases specifically that would be
the party secretary.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
It was also cler that
Winston Peters had adopted the same structure - as has often been
said, he learned well how to attract and manage donations while he was
a member of the National Party.
Adopting the same structure is simply copying an idea. This idea is
in fact being copied by a number of organisations - which includes
most if not all charitable trusts.
And yet National have now seen four people charges in relation to
their handling of the receipt of political donations (an issue not
faced by most charitable trusts) . . .
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
https://www.nationalfoundation.org.nz/
Where is the NZ First Foundation website? Who are the trustees? Does
NZF (the party) declare donations to the Foundation as political
donations? Does NZF (the foundation) operate as a capital-protected
fund as the National Foundation does (do you even understand the
significance of this?)?
None of the answers to the above questions are the same for both. One
therefore cannot reasonably be described as a copy of the other.
Peters has said himself that he copied the structure from teh National
Party. The way in which those structures have been used subsequently
appears to have changed, and may not differe between the two political
parties, but we do not know enough to ne conclusive about what
differences now exist.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
NZ First however does not have the size of National's war chest - they
live from election to election, whereas National can carry sizeable
assets forward. N
How do you know any of this? Cite please, for both parties.
Total spending is a matter of public record - National have much
greater financial resources than any other party.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
NZ First have taken to "lending" money from the Trust
to the Party, and rolling those loans over. Get the accounting wrong
and there can be problems. We don't know, but I suspect that may be a
significant difference between the two parties. The other issue is
whether donors really knew that they wer not donating to the Party,
but to a slush fund. National have been doing it for years and have
professional staff to dot all the i's and cross all the t's, although
as we saw from Jamie-Lee Ross, loose lips can sink ships . . .
You keep relying on the actions of someone who clearly lost the plot
and subsequently required mental health treatment.
I was relying at least in part to the video prevously posted of a
discussion between Simon Bridges and Jamie-Lee Ross. It is not clear
that at the time of that conversation either had "lost the plot" in
the sense of a need for medical health treatment; what was clear was
that they were both discussing ways of hiding a large donation. It is
clear that both were aware of that objective.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
The SFO is involved clearly because the Electoral Commission suspects
that donations intended for NZF (the party) went to NZF (the
foundation) without the donor's knowledge and were not declared as if
they were to a political party. There has never been any suggestion
that the same has happened with National - or are you accusing the
Electoral Commission of unjustly singling out NZF?
[I don't usually snip off-topic text but in this thread at this time I
have got beyond saturation point]
I should have realised you are incapable of addressing more than a few
simle sentences at a time. Others may not have a greater intellectual
capacity than a rock . . .
In all my years of posting here, you have never stooped to this level
of insult with me before. Why now? It seems you have lost your cool
completely and lashed out. Shame on you.
I do apologise, Crash; I had not properly checked the author of your
post and presumed that I was responding to yet another post from Tony
- avoiding discussion he cannot respond to rationally by claiming it
is off-topic is a favourite aviladance tactic of his.

Still you would have seen the thread discussion, and I have now
commented on some of your earlier comments above.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119127222/serious-fraud-office-filing-criminal-charges-in-relation-to-national-party-donations
There is a suggestion that a large donation was being split to avoid
the identity of the donor being publicised - andBridges later
indicated that the National Party intended to return those donations
of $15.000 each - we dont know if they have done that . . .
The article you cite covers alleged mishandling of a donation to the
National Party. As the National Foundation is not named it seems that
it is not involved.
I don't think we can conclude that National's separate Trust was or
was not used from the video, but what we do know if that there was an
investigation by the SFO - and that the investigation resulted in four
people being charged.
Post by Crash
This is trivial compared to the level of allegations in respect of
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/408786/donations-and-declarations-the-nz-first-foundation-explained
What is clear from that article is that NZ First had changed the way
in which they used their trust - and that is consistent with my
statements earlier in the thread. MZ First seem to have by-passed
their previous practice of the trust 'lending' the party money to pay
expenses, and had expenses paid directly by the Trust.

It is not surprising that there was an SFO investigation into
National's treatment of donations, and it is not surprising that there
is now an investigation into the treatment of sonations by NZ First.
We know that neither party will be charged; but just as Bridges was
not charged, I do not expect Peters to be charged. However other
individuals within National were charged, and that may well be the
case for NZ First.

The charges may differ slightly (we do not know the details of the
charged relating to National), but the cases are very similar in
principle - in both cases there appears to have been an aim of
circumventing the intention of laws relating to the disclosure of
donations
Post by Crash
As a result of this revelation it appears that NZF have launched a
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/409467/winston-peters-on-photos-of-reporters-we-took-the-photographs
This the cite JohnO gave in his original post.
So to summarise two parties have been involved in issues which
warranted investigation by teh SFO. In both cases, there is evidence
from their own statements that the party leaders knew about how their
parties handled donations

For one party, National, there have been four people charged with
offences, in the other, there have been no charges, but the
investigations have only recently started.

Yet supporters of National are claiming that their party has been
exonerated and that NZ First

If anyone has broken the law, let us hope that prosecutions are
succesful, but at this sage, National appear to be on weak grund in
claiming that Winston Peters should be stood down when they were not
prepared to stand Simon Bridges down for equivalent issues.
Tony
2020-02-17 03:20:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 13:11:57 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by JohnO
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/409467/winston-peters-on-photos-of-reporters-we-took-the-photographs
So... WhaleOil and Simon Lusk are involved in running dark stuff for
NZFirst, and that's propping up the government.
And not even the Greens have a thing to say.
Because they are filthy sticking corrupt hypocrites. Every one of them.
The stench is becoming unbearable. Trouble is the country has to many
village idiots like Rich who'll vote them back in given half a chance!
Incorrect John. Trouble is that National and ACT don't seem able to
bring this forward as an issue to turn voters away from NZF. Neither
can they bring forward the corruption issues between the Provincial
Growth Fund and a fund applicant called NZ Future Forest Products
(whose directors include Winston's partner, lawyer and lawyer's son).
NZFFP is owned by a Limited Partnership whose partners are not a
public record.
I think some of National's accusations have come through to the
consciousness of the public, but too often they are being seen to have
fired blanks - and been merely malicious, or to be merely
distractions, as in this case, for conduct for which they appear to be
at least as guilty as those they are cynically accusing of misconduct.
The thought that National has returned to Dirty Tricks, using some of
the same players or at least Whale-oil sympathisers to try and attavk
another political party for having copied National's legal structures
for donations indicates that they have not learned from the recent
past; such cynical maniplation using unethical or at least
questionable practices to accuse NZ First of doing what they have had
four of their people charges with offences does not even seem
particularly intelligent.
Rich that is simply laughable in the context of the journalist's
photos saga that the OP cited.
Peters has not helped himself with a changing story over the
photographs - he has claimed that his party took the photos but later
claimed that they had been sent to him and he had released them to the
media. What is clear is that NZ First has had some party staff unhappy
about being asked to sign off on legal statements that they are
concerned may not be true. An invetigation into that matter alone is
justified, but the involvement of individuals who have prevously been
aligned to National in peddling stories about NZ First justifies
caution in presuming the worst.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
It has been clear for some time that the structure National had was
owing used to hide donations - both those of large amounts and those
from "investors" where publicity would ahve been unwelcome - were
taing advantage of weaknesses in the law.
Careful Rich - that in my view is slanderous and absolutely untrue.
There is no 'investor' who has made a donation to National that has
gone to the foundation. The existence of the National Foundation is
public knowledge and donations to the foundation are reported as
political donations (ie as if they were donations to the National
Party). You do not seem to understand any of this and wantonly accuse
National of wrongdoing purely because it suits your doggedly
anti-National agenda.
We have yet to learn exactly what the four charges are in relation to;
all we know is that they were in relation to political donations. We
do know that National have made changes in the last few years to how
their trust is used, but there have been a number of reports in the
past that large donations were being conceled - and the video of a
discussion between Ross and Bridges, together with four legal charges,
indicates that those days may not be over. Some have tried to distance
Bridges from these charges on the grounds that the National PArty
itelf was not charged - but that is a false defence if as has been
claimed it would not be possible under law to charge any political
party - it is not an entity that can be charged; any offences would be
chaged to those individuals responsible for specific matters working
for the party; and in at leaat some cases specifically that would be
the party secretary.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
It was also cler that
Winston Peters had adopted the same structure - as has often been
said, he learned well how to attract and manage donations while he was
a member of the National Party.
Adopting the same structure is simply copying an idea. This idea is
in fact being copied by a number of organisations - which includes
most if not all charitable trusts.
And yet National have now seen four people charges in relation to
their handling of the receipt of political donations (an issue not
faced by most charitable trusts) . . .
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
https://www.nationalfoundation.org.nz/
Where is the NZ First Foundation website? Who are the trustees? Does
NZF (the party) declare donations to the Foundation as political
donations? Does NZF (the foundation) operate as a capital-protected
fund as the National Foundation does (do you even understand the
significance of this?)?
None of the answers to the above questions are the same for both. One
therefore cannot reasonably be described as a copy of the other.
Peters has said himself that he copied the structure from teh National
Party. The way in which those structures have been used subsequently
appears to have changed, and may not differe between the two political
parties, but we do not know enough to ne conclusive about what
differences now exist.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
NZ First however does not have the size of National's war chest - they
live from election to election, whereas National can carry sizeable
assets forward. N
How do you know any of this? Cite please, for both parties.
Total spending is a matter of public record - National have much
greater financial resources than any other party.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
NZ First have taken to "lending" money from the Trust
to the Party, and rolling those loans over. Get the accounting wrong
and there can be problems. We don't know, but I suspect that may be a
significant difference between the two parties. The other issue is
whether donors really knew that they wer not donating to the Party,
but to a slush fund. National have been doing it for years and have
professional staff to dot all the i's and cross all the t's, although
as we saw from Jamie-Lee Ross, loose lips can sink ships . . .
You keep relying on the actions of someone who clearly lost the plot
and subsequently required mental health treatment.
I was relying at least in part to the video prevously posted of a
discussion between Simon Bridges and Jamie-Lee Ross. It is not clear
that at the time of that conversation either had "lost the plot" in
the sense of a need for medical health treatment; what was clear was
that they were both discussing ways of hiding a large donation. It is
clear that both were aware of that objective.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
The SFO is involved clearly because the Electoral Commission suspects
that donations intended for NZF (the party) went to NZF (the
foundation) without the donor's knowledge and were not declared as if
they were to a political party. There has never been any suggestion
that the same has happened with National - or are you accusing the
Electoral Commission of unjustly singling out NZF?
[I don't usually snip off-topic text but in this thread at this time I
have got beyond saturation point]
I should have realised you are incapable of addressing more than a few
simle sentences at a time. Others may not have a greater intellectual
capacity than a rock . . .
In all my years of posting here, you have never stooped to this level
of insult with me before. Why now? It seems you have lost your cool
completely and lashed out. Shame on you.
I do apologise, Crash; I had not properly checked the author of your
post and presumed that I was responding to yet another post from Tony
- avoiding discussion he cannot respond to rationally by claiming it
is off-topic is a favourite aviladance tactic of his.
That is a lie, pure and simple and you cannot sustain it with evidence.
Your explosive reaction is exactly what you do when someone refuses to be
browbeaten by your repetitive blaming of the last government for the failures
of this one and "your" change in topic which you have done here several times.
Post by Rich80105
Still you would have seen the thread discussion, and I have now
commented on some of your earlier comments above.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119127222/serious-fraud-office-filing-criminal-charges-in-relation-to-national-party-donations
There is a suggestion that a large donation was being split to avoid
the identity of the donor being publicised - andBridges later
indicated that the National Party intended to return those donations
of $15.000 each - we dont know if they have done that . . .
The article you cite covers alleged mishandling of a donation to the
National Party. As the National Foundation is not named it seems that
it is not involved.
I don't think we can conclude that National's separate Trust was or
was not used from the video, but what we do know if that there was an
investigation by the SFO - and that the investigation resulted in four
people being charged.
Post by Crash
This is trivial compared to the level of allegations in respect of
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/408786/donations-and-declarations-the-nz-first-foundation-explained
What is clear from that article is that NZ First had changed the way
in which they used their trust - and that is consistent with my
statements earlier in the thread. MZ First seem to have by-passed
their previous practice of the trust 'lending' the party money to pay
expenses, and had expenses paid directly by the Trust.
It is not surprising that there was an SFO investigation into
National's treatment of donations, and it is not surprising that there
is now an investigation into the treatment of sonations by NZ First.
We know that neither party will be charged; but just as Bridges was
not charged, I do not expect Peters to be charged. However other
individuals within National were charged, and that may well be the
case for NZ First.
The charges may differ slightly (we do not know the details of the
charged relating to National), but the cases are very similar in
principle - in both cases there appears to have been an aim of
circumventing the intention of laws relating to the disclosure of
donations
Post by Crash
As a result of this revelation it appears that NZF have launched a
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/409467/winston-peters-on-photos-of-reporters-we-took-the-photographs
This the cite JohnO gave in his original post.
So to summarise two parties have been involved in issues which
warranted investigation by teh SFO. In both cases, there is evidence
from their own statements that the party leaders knew about how their
parties handled donations
For one party, National, there have been four people charged with
offences, in the other, there have been no charges, but the
investigations have only recently started.
Yet supporters of National are claiming that their party has been
exonerated and that NZ First
If anyone has broken the law, let us hope that prosecutions are
succesful, but at this sage, National appear to be on weak grund in
claiming that Winston Peters should be stood down when they were not
prepared to stand Simon Bridges down for equivalent issues.
Balance
2020-02-15 22:58:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 13:11:57 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by JohnO
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/409467/winston-peters-on-photos-of-reporters-we-took-the-photographs
So... WhaleOil and Simon Lusk are involved in running dark stuff for NZFirst, and that's propping up the government.
And not even the Greens have a thing to say.
Because they are filthy sticking corrupt hypocrites. Every one of them.
The stench is becoming unbearable. Trouble is the country has to many village idiots like Rich who'll vote them back in given half a chance!
Incorrect John. Trouble is that National and ACT don't seem able to
bring this forward as an issue to turn voters away from NZF. Neither
can they bring forward the corruption issues between the Provincial
Growth Fund and a fund applicant called NZ Future Forest Products
(whose directors include Winston's partner, lawyer and lawyer's son).
NZFFP is owned by a Limited Partnership whose partners are not a
public record.
I think some of National's accusations have come through to the
consciousness of the public, but too often they are being seen to have
fired blanks - and been merely malicious, or to be merely
distractions, as in this case, for conduct for which they appear to be
at least as guilty as those they are cynically accusing of misconduct.
The thought that National has returned to Dirty Tricks, using some of
the same players or at least Whale-oil sympathisers to try and attavk
another political party for having copied National's legal structures
for donations indicates that they have not learned from the recent
past; such cynical maniplation using unethical or at least
questionable practices to accuse NZ First of doing what they have had
four of their people charges with offences does not even seem
particularly intelligent.
Rich that is simply laughable in the context of the journalist's
photos saga that the OP cited.
Post by Rich80105
It has been clear for some time that the structure National had was
owing used to hide donations - both those of large amounts and those
from "investors" where publicity would ahve been unwelcome - were
taing advantage of weaknesses in the law.
Careful Rich - that in my view is slanderous and absolutely untrue.
There is no 'investor' who has made a donation to National that has
gone to the foundation. The existence of the National Foundation is
public knowledge and donations to the foundation are reported as
political donations (ie as if they were donations to the National
Party). You do not seem to understand any of this and wantonly accuse
National of wrongdoing purely because it suits your doggedly
anti-National agenda.
Post by Rich80105
It was also cler that
Winston Peters had adopted the same structure - as has often been
said, he learned well how to attract and mmnage donations while he was
a member of the National Party.
Adopting the same structure is simply copying an idea. This idea is
in fact being copied by a number of organisations - which includes
most if not all charitable trusts.
https://www.nationalfoundation.org.nz/
Where is the NZ First Foundation website? Who are the trustees? Does
NZF (the party) declare donations to the Foundation as political
donations? Does NZF (the foundation) operate as a capital-protected
fund as the National Foundation does (do you even understand the
significance of this?)?
None of the answers to the above questions are the same for both. One
therefore cannot reasonably be described as a copy of the other.
Post by Rich80105
NZ First however does not have the size of National's war chest - they
live from election to election, whereas National can carry sizeable
assets forward. N
How do you know any of this? Cite please, for both parties.
Post by Rich80105
NZ First have taken to "lending" money from the Trust
to the Party, and rolling those loans over. Get the accounting wrong
and there can be problems. We don't know, but I suspect that may be a
significant difference between the two parties. The other issue is
whether donors really knew that they wer not donating to the Party,
but to a slush fund. National have been doing it for years and have
professional staff to dot all the i's and cross all the t's, although
as we saw from Jamie-Lee Ross, loose lips can sink ships . . .
You keep relying on the actions of someone who clearly lost the plot
and subsequently required mental health treatment.
The SFO is involved clearly because the Electoral Commission suspects
that donations intended for NZF (the party) went to NZF (the
foundation) without the donor's knowledge and were not declared as if
they were to a political party. There has never been any suggestion
that the same has happened with National - or are you accusing the
Electoral Commission of unjustly singling out NZF?
[I don't usually snip off-topic text but in this thread at this time I
have got beyond saturation point]
I should have realised you are incapable of addressing more than a few
simle sentences at a time. Others may not have a greater intellectual
capacity than a rock . . .
I have recently returned from something similar to a sabatical but
unusual in that for the past 18 months I have not used the internet or
a cellular 'phone and have only occasionally had access to a land
line.
And I returned to this.
Crash is one of the most moderate contributors to this small
newsgroup, his posts are invariably well thought out and never
abusive.
I am now convinced of what I suspected more than a year ago. You are
one of those people who is driven by a fairly common misconception.
You are driven by the process not by the desired result.
Specifically you see politics as an end unto itself and not a means to
achieve democracy. Most people see politics as a necessary biproduct
of a democratic process and that is exactly what it should be.
Believing in politics as anything but a process is dangerous and can
put a democracy at risk. There are many such examples in history.
Introspection will help but you would need to want to change.
Children are usually taught that being rude never gets them what they
would like. Ça donne à réfléchir?
Post by Rich80105
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/119127222/serious-fraud-office-filing-criminal-charges-in-relation-to-national-party-donations
There is a suggestion that a large donation was being split to avoid
the identity of the donor being publicised - andBridges later
indicated that the National Party intended to return those donations
of $15.000 each - we dont know if they have done that . . .
Gordon
2020-02-14 04:42:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
Post by JohnO
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/409467/winston-peters-on-photos-of-reporters-we-took-the-photographs
So... WhaleOil and Simon Lusk are involved in running dark stuff for NZFirst, and that's propping up the government.
And not even the Greens have a thing to say.
Because they are filthy sticking corrupt hypocrites. Every one of them.
The stench is becoming unbearable. Trouble is the country has to many village idiots like Rich who'll vote them back in given half a chance!
Look, we vote for MP's. Show me how to vote Winston out, along with a few
others and I am all ears.

I would say that it is the city slicker idiots which vote NZF. Small town NZ
is more like NATIONAL< NATIONAL, AND NATIONAL.
Rich80105
2020-02-14 06:01:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by John Bowes
Post by JohnO
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/409467/winston-peters-on-photos-of-reporters-we-took-the-photographs
So... WhaleOil and Simon Lusk are involved in running dark stuff for NZFirst, and that's propping up the government.
And not even the Greens have a thing to say.
Because they are filthy sticking corrupt hypocrites. Every one of them.
The stench is becoming unbearable. Trouble is the country has to many village idiots like Rich who'll vote them back in given half a chance!
Look, we vote for MP's. Show me how to vote Winston out, along with a few
others and I am all ears.
I would say that it is the city slicker idiots which vote NZF. Small town NZ
is more like NATIONAL< NATIONAL, AND NATIONAL.
The distribution of part votes is readily available by electorate - I
suspect you will find that NZ First has a wider distribution than just
cities.
John Bowes
2020-02-15 02:27:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by John Bowes
Post by JohnO
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/409467/winston-peters-on-photos-of-reporters-we-took-the-photographs
So... WhaleOil and Simon Lusk are involved in running dark stuff for NZFirst, and that's propping up the government.
And not even the Greens have a thing to say.
Because they are filthy sticking corrupt hypocrites. Every one of them.
The stench is becoming unbearable. Trouble is the country has to many village idiots like Rich who'll vote them back in given half a chance!
Look, we vote for MP's. Show me how to vote Winston out, along with a few
others and I am all ears.
I would say that it is the city slicker idiots which vote NZF. Small town NZ
is more like NATIONAL< NATIONAL, AND NATIONAL.
The distribution of part votes is readily available by electorate - I
suspect you will find that NZ First has a wider distribution than just
cities.
Cite please rich. This looks like yet another of your posts that have no other proof supporting it than your dreams :)
George
2020-02-14 19:25:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 14 Feb 2020 04:42:09 GMT
Post by Gordon
Look, we vote for MP's. Show me how to vote Winston out, along with a
few others and I am all ears.
But we didn't vote him in.
He got in because his party got more than 5%.
We have to keep Winston first and the Greens below 3% and job done
John Bowes
2020-02-15 02:29:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George
On 14 Feb 2020 04:42:09 GMT
Post by Gordon
Look, we vote for MP's. Show me how to vote Winston out, along with a
few others and I am all ears.
But we didn't vote him in.
He got in because his party got more than 5%.
We have to keep Winston first and the Greens below 3% and job done
We need changes to MMP that remove the chance that a shyster like Winston can give himself the second highest salary in parliament. Plus deny's list MP's any seats in cabinet! Currently we have the leader of a party that only just made it into parliament making major decisions for the country!
George
2020-02-15 19:19:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 18:29:35 -0800 (PST)
Post by John Bowes
Post by George
On 14 Feb 2020 04:42:09 GMT
Post by Gordon
Look, we vote for MP's. Show me how to vote Winston out, along
with a few others and I am all ears.
But we didn't vote him in.
He got in because his party got more than 5%.
We have to keep Winston first and the Greens below 3% and job done
We need changes to MMP that remove the chance that a shyster like
Winston can give himself the second highest salary in parliament.
Plus deny's list MP's any seats in cabinet! Currently we have the
leader of a party that only just made it into parliament making major
decisions for the country!
!0 % as the barrier to unelected parties thresh hold ????
John Bowes
2020-02-16 02:49:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George
On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 18:29:35 -0800 (PST)
Post by John Bowes
Post by George
On 14 Feb 2020 04:42:09 GMT
Post by Gordon
Look, we vote for MP's. Show me how to vote Winston out, along
with a few others and I am all ears.
But we didn't vote him in.
He got in because his party got more than 5%.
We have to keep Winston first and the Greens below 3% and job done
We need changes to MMP that remove the chance that a shyster like
Winston can give himself the second highest salary in parliament.
Plus deny's list MP's any seats in cabinet! Currently we have the
leader of a party that only just made it into parliament making major
decisions for the country!
!0 % as the barrier to unelected parties thresh hold ????
don't have problem with 5% as long as they're not in a position to give themselves the baubles Winston's had over the years....
Gordon
2020-02-14 04:39:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JohnO
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/409467/winston-peters-on-photos-of-reporters-we-took-the-photographs
So... WhaleOil and Simon Lusk are involved in running dark stuff for NZFirst, and that's propping up the government.
And not even the Greens have a thing to say.
Because they are filthy sticking corrupt hypocrites. Every one of them.
Look, Winston, every since the wine box has only been good for one thing.
Doing what is needed to keep him in the news.

Still, he is still there, people vote for him and we have this ongoing
situation. After Winston goes there will be some one else to fill up his
position.

To think that the PM called an election 7 months hence. Seven weeks would
have been a better choice.
Loading...