Simon Bridges bad week, month , year

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Simon Bridges bad week, month , year

1 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | ... | 37

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2110717 18-Oct-2018 22:07

networkn:

Really?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/106098842/government-will-pay-legal-fees-of-mps-in-winston-peters-super

If the Government was prepared to step in and pay for the legal defence of these MP's, then I don't think it's unreasonable that your average non lawyer would assume that SB may have his legal fees contributed to as well.

They aren't the exact same situation, granted, however most lay people wouldn't neccessarily understand why MP's might be defended in one situation and not in this one.

If you're going to be do selective arguing, at least have the decency to understand what the article you quoted said. But seeing that you don't seem to care about such a thing, let me help you.

Documents released to Stuff under the Official Information Act show Cabinet agreed in February to cover the initial legal costs incurred by the former National Party ministers sued by Peters.

Note the word "initial" and the fact that this decision was reached through an extraordinary/unusual cabinet decision. Note further that some of those sued obtained the information that Peters alleged they released in their capacity as cabinet ministers -- this would have been a significant factor in that decision. However, the general position on who pays for what lawsuits is exactly as I stated. The most laughable thing is how you're using your own admitted ignorance in these matters as some kind of justification for your spewings of ignorance. Have you honestly never thought of the virtue of maintaining a respectful silence over matters on which you aren't qualified to comment? This especially when you're making such comments in the context of a highly charged and political matter, against the background of your obvious and pronounced pro-National biases that is patent for all to see on here.

Oh and I also can see that another non-lawyer on here has just rather helpfully given you a pretty succinct schooling on matters of basic legal knowledge. Like I suggested before, perhaps it's time that you read more and post less. Whether you take up this suggestion or not is of no moment to me, of course.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2110722 18-Oct-2018 22:50

Handle9:

IANAL but the principles are pretty simple. Peters has an extensive record of suing people for defamation and he has paid for that privately. Equally he would keep any recovery.

The defense of someone acting as a minister of the crown can be paid for by taxpayers but if they are being sued as individuals then it is generally not recoverable.

Eg If I personally called an individual a thief and a liar they could sue me personally. If the government department I headed called someone a fraudster then that the department would be liable and then the crown would pay costs.

IMO Lee-Ross called Simon Bridges personally corrupt therefore any action is between them personally. It's got nothing do with the Crown and the Crown doesn't have liability.

Thank you for clarifying. Well done for doing it without being insulting, rude, superior, arogant and without resorting to insulting zingers.

I still believe it to be not in the public interest for SB to file defamation charges. I also don't see what SB or the National party would gain from it? It would simply give oxygen to an issue I am sure National would rather move on from.

Bluntj

584 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 284

#2110797 19-Oct-2018 09:30

JLR and certain people in this thread have called Bridges out on several things recently that all have now almost certainly proven fake. There was never any election fraud just like there was not the $100k donation.

From what I have been told Bridges never called JLR's illness embarrassing but rather the events surrounding it including the rumours of how he had been treating women.

I certainly am not one of Bridges fans, but he didn't deserve all this. Just goes how easy it is to destabalise things based on false facts. Clearly JLR has become very unstable for whatever reason and now we have our so called Deputy PM jumping on the band wagon.

It was good to see we have at least one decent media organisation (newsroom.co.nz) prepared to do the hard yards and do some proper investigative journalism that has helped bring this whole debacle back on track.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 589
Inactive user

#2110811 19-Oct-2018 09:48

I'm beginning to think that I may have been wrong to criticise Bridges for calling the enquiry.

(Ain't hindsight a wonderful thing)

It (the leak enquiry) has certainly had a positive outcome by ultimately exposing and removing Ross from any position of influence. I guess the question now is whether that was a lucky outcome from a poor decision, or was Bridges onto something from the outset.

Obviously this has been hugely damaging for National, but given JLR's treachery is there any other course of action that the party might have taken that would have given a better outcome?

gulfa

321 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 128
Inactive user

#2110815 19-Oct-2018 10:02

It looks very much like the Heads of the National party were aware of his actions but he was still allowed to continue. A complaint was made as early as 2016/17 and according to the woman involved. These people have to accept they did not act allowing him to continue to represent the party through the election. You have to ask whether other people (women) who have been involved whether they to approached the leaders and were also made aware of JLR. (Is he NZ's Harvey W?).It would be interesting to know when the first complaints were made. The longer this goes on the deeper the hole gets. Cover up for people who have done wrong seems to be a common theme for political parties, businesses and sports groups etc..

Bluntj

584 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 284

#2110821 19-Oct-2018 10:17

gulfa:

It looks very much like the Heads of the National party were aware of his actions but he was still allowed to continue. A complaint was made as early as 2016/17 and according to the woman involved. These people have to accept they did not act allowing him to continue to represent the party through the election. You have to ask whether other people (women) who have been involved whether they to approached the leaders and were also made aware of JLR. (Is he NZ's Harvey W?).It would be interesting to know when the first complaints were made. The longer this goes on the deeper the hole gets. Cover up for people who have done wrong seems to be a common theme for political parties, businesses and sports groups etc..

You are again critiquing people here without full knowledge. I realise a lot of people want this to bring the National party down in a heap, but that wont happen until the facts are out. Maybe natural justice should also apply to these forums.

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

gulfa

321 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 128
Inactive user

#2110824 19-Oct-2018 10:24

Quote From article in NZ Herald

Bungard complained to the National Party - the organisation, not the political wing - which resulted in president Peter Goodfellow stepping in. The Herald understands National Party board member, and northern regional chairman, Andrew Hunt was also involved.

"They've called him in and he's got a serious talking to. He did back off after that."

Bungard said she believed the party had done what it could but it was difficult when the harassment included constant low-level incidents over which there was no physical evidence.

"Greg and Peter Goodfellow did what they could at the time given the evidence they had to go on. But it was one person's word against another. I've been a long-time supporter of the National Party and there was nothing they could do.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2110825 19-Oct-2018 10:25

Bluntj:

There was never any election fraud just like there was not the $100k donation.

The may not have been election "fraud" in terms of the law, but there almost certainly was a donation, and a discussion within the NP about how to handle it.

Donors who don't tie up with names/addresses on the electoral roll?

Doesn't sound straight-up to me.

List MP positions "for sale"?

Doesn't sound straight-up to me.

No Indians, as they aren't as valuable as Chinese?

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/368989/senior-indian-diplomat-very-hurt-by-bridges-ross-comments

The JLR situation is an ugly sideshow.

Using it as a distraction doesn't change the fact that the NP comes out of this smelling like a festering pile - and that will persist long after JLR is forgotten.

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#2110874 19-Oct-2018 11:01

Fred99:

The may not have been election "fraud" in terms of the law, but there almost certainly was a donation, and a discussion within the NP about how to handle it.

Donors who don't tie up with names/addresses on the electoral roll?

Doesn't sound straight-up to me.

List MP positions "for sale"?

Doesn't sound straight-up to me.

No Indians, as they aren't as valuable as Chinese?

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/368989/senior-indian-diplomat-very-hurt-by-bridges-ross-comments

The JLR situation is an ugly sideshow.

Using it as a distraction doesn't change the fact that the NP comes out of this smelling like a festering pile - and that will persist long after JLR is forgotten.

Politics is all about money. No money no campaign. No campaign, no votes.

Do donors have to be on the electoral role? Are the requirements to be on the electoral role the same as the requirements to reside in NZ?

The labour party sells list places to the unions every single election. Between elections the unions effectively get to choose labour's leader. They do so using money collected from their membership.

Trading off ethnicities ... again it's about votes. How big is the Chinese community vs the Indian community and how more likely to vote National. I agree it's ugly but it's not unique to the NP. Do you really think other parties don't consider the market appeal of their mix of MPs' gender and ethnicities?

It's all voter-focussed marketing.

Mike

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2110879 19-Oct-2018 11:11

I had a very similar reply written, yours was better.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2110883 19-Oct-2018 11:27

One should never see what or hear what goes on in marketing meetings and this is similar. Honestly I always hated being in marketing meetings but I am probably a sensitive soul. The real fault here was JMR recording collegues for covert agendas then releasing it when he thought he could use it leverage and personal gain. That shows his claim of have a good moral compass is absolute bilge water. On reflection I am thinking Simon Bridges main faults are naivety and inexperience.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2110885 19-Oct-2018 11:32

MikeB4:

One should never see what or hear what goes on in marketing meetings and this is similar. Honestly I always hated being in marketing meetings but I am probably a sensitive soul. The real fault here was JMR recording collegues for covert agendas then releasing it when he thought he could use it leverage and personal gain. That shows his claim of have a good moral compass is absolute bilge water. On reflection I am thinking Simon Bridges main faults are naivety and inexperience.

I agree with these points. I have spent a fair bit of time critiszing JA for her inexperienced take on being our countries leader, and I stand by that 100%.

Simon Bridges is missing some of the polish that have been present in prior leaders of the NP and of this country and he will make mistakes. People are focused on his speech patterns, but that doesn't worry me so much as the fact hasn't used his time in opposition taking lessons on how to do better in this regard, etc.

He may not survive this, but I believe that the time taken to be leader in opposition would ultimately make him a better potential PM, something I advocated JA doing before being thrust into prime time.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2110923 19-Oct-2018 11:44

I feel he should have been Deputy for a time and may have taken up the role of Leader too soon and this may well be a pivotal mistake. He also needs to learn to seperate his personal life from politics and not allow his religious beliefs to influence his decisions that can affect the wider community. It is okay that he has his believes but they must be left at the Beehive door.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#2110945 19-Oct-2018 12:56

networkn:

He may not survive this, but I believe that the time taken to be leader in opposition would ultimately make him a better potential PM, something I advocated JA doing before being thrust into prime time.

On the basis of your principle that experience makes for a better leader, I assume you now believe that JA will be an absolute crackerjack of a PM when she wins the next election?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2110946 19-Oct-2018 13:01

Rikkitic:

networkn:

He may not survive this, but I believe that the time taken to be leader in opposition would ultimately make him a better potential PM, something I advocated JA doing before being thrust into prime time.

On the basis of your principle that experience makes for a better leader, I assume you now believe that JA will be an absolute crackerjack of a PM if she wins the next election?

I fixed that for you.

She hasn't exactly been that flash this time around, but certainly one would *hope* that the longer she is doing the job, better she would be at it.

Still doesn't mean I think she should be PM or that Labour should be in power based on policies.

1 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | ... | 37