Our next national election - policies, promises and people

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

Forums › Politics › Our next national election - policies, promises and people

1 | ... | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | ... | 33

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2424074 19-Feb-2020 14:42

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12309887

Jami-Lee Ross is one of four men charged by the Serious Fraud Office over allegations about two $100,000 donations to the National Party.

Suppression was lifted this afternoon for the 34-year-old former National Party member, who faces two charges for the alleged use of a "fraudulent device, trick, or stratagem" to split up the two donations.

Ross was kicked out of the party last year and lodged a complaint with police in October 2018 after making a string of allegations against National and its leader Simon Bridges.

Ross' complaint was referred by police to the SFO in March last year.

Oh my.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2424075 19-Feb-2020 14:44

ooops, that's an own goal.

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

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80662 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41090

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2424077 19-Feb-2020 14:44

These situations remind me of the famous quote by Trump: "the best people".

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2424083 19-Feb-2020 14:50

And that secret tape we all heard.

So that means National by virtue of its agents, is involved in donation splitting. Coincidence this is out now with the recent NZF debacle doing the rounds?

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2424086 19-Feb-2020 14:54

Not really a coincidence it has been going on for a looooooooong time.

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

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2424089 19-Feb-2020 14:59

tdgeek:

So that means National by virtue of its agents, is involved in donation splitting. Coincidence this is out now with the recent NZF debacle doing the rounds?

That depends if the SFO is satisfied that the agent was not carrying those actions with the understanding or knowledge of the party. It could be that Ross has left a paper trail that suggests he was deliberately doing this to undermine Bridges, which is not a huge stretch.

The SFO has not prosecuted the National Party. That doesn't mean they didn't do anything wrong - perhaps not to a high enough standard to be convicted, maybe - but you cannot definitively say "the National Party is involved in donation splitting" when none of the other National Party members involved has been charged.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2424095 19-Feb-2020 15:08

GV27:

tdgeek:

So that means National by virtue of its agents, is involved in donation splitting. Coincidence this is out now with the recent NZF debacle doing the rounds?

That depends if the SFO is satisfied that the agent was not carrying those actions with the understanding or knowledge of the party. It could be that Ross has left a paper trail that suggests he was deliberately doing this to undermine Bridges, which is not a huge stretch.

The SFO has not prosecuted the National Party. That doesn't mean they didn't do anything wrong - perhaps not to a high enough standard to be convicted, maybe - but you cannot definitively say "the National Party is involved in donation splitting" when none of the other National Party members involved has been charged.

If you do work for your employer, you are an agent. So you represent your employer. IMO there is as solid link. Did Simon ask him to split the donations? No evidence. Butdoe we really believe that JLR acted alone, and the only people that knew was him and the three donors? We heard the tape, JLR was his right hand man. Its at least, if you get big donations I dont want to know just deal with it, you know what I mean. Id like to hear that tape again, I recall an inference to just deal with it

I just see minimising Bridges and maximising Peters here? Was it Peters that split the donations? If not, he is clear, as it seems Bridges is? So no peters issue now? It wasnt even NZF it was the foundation, although tbh Id take that as the same. But all this doesn't seem to apply to National? I see National and Bridges in deeper doodoo's than Peters

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2424096 19-Feb-2020 15:08

This election just got interesting. Unless Labour and NZ Green seriously screw up over the next few months I cannot see National or NZ First getting close to the Treasury benches. Although National has not been directly implicated I think there will sufficient doubt in the minds of the voters and they will desert them. If one is close to a fan hit with waste matter some will always stick and its presence will linger for a long time.

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

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2424098 19-Feb-2020 15:19

tdgeek:

If you do work for your employer, you are an agent. So you represent your employer. IMO there is as solid link. Did Simon ask him to split the donations? No evidence. Butdoe we really believe that JLR acted alone, and the only people that knew was him and the three donors? We heard the tape, JLR was his right hand man. Its at least, if you get big donations I dont want to know just deal with it, you know what I mean. Id like to hear that tape again, I recall an inference to just deal with it

I just see minimising Bridges and maximising Peters here? Was it Peters that split the donations? If not, he is clear, as it seems Bridges is? So no peters issue now? It wasnt even NZF it was the foundation, although tbh Id take that as the same. But all this doesn't seem to apply to National? I see National and Bridges in deeper doodoo's than Peters

If you work outside of the scope of an agreement, you are no longer acting under the blessing of your employer. Usually intentionally misleading or trying to entrap a leader of a political party does not fall under 'acting with their authority'.

The tape was more notable for Bridges being an uncouth idiot who spoke ill of his MPs and the value of certain ethnicities as list MPs when it came to votes. Unbecoming of a party leader, sure, but still not illegal.

From memory, the real donation related stuff was the later text messages between Ross and the Party staffers tasked with recording them correctly, which were noteworthy for showing no clear intent to subvert electoral law at all.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2424104 19-Feb-2020 15:30

GV27:

tdgeek:

If you do work for your employer, you are an agent. So you represent your employer. IMO there is as solid link. Did Simon ask him to split the donations? No evidence. Butdoe we really believe that JLR acted alone, and the only people that knew was him and the three donors? We heard the tape, JLR was his right hand man. Its at least, if you get big donations I dont want to know just deal with it, you know what I mean. Id like to hear that tape again, I recall an inference to just deal with it

I just see minimising Bridges and maximising Peters here? Was it Peters that split the donations? If not, he is clear, as it seems Bridges is? So no peters issue now? It wasnt even NZF it was the foundation, although tbh Id take that as the same. But all this doesn't seem to apply to National? I see National and Bridges in deeper doodoo's than Peters

If you work outside of the scope of an agreement, you are no longer acting under the blessing of your employer. Usually intentionally misleading or trying to entrap a leader of a political party does not fall under 'acting with their authority'.

The tape was more notable for Bridges being an uncouth idiot who spoke ill of his MPs and the value of certain ethnicities as list MPs when it came to votes. Unbecoming of a party leader, sure, but still not illegal.

From memory, the real donation related stuff was the later text messages between Ross and the Party staffers tasked with recording them correctly, which were noteworthy for showing no clear intent to subvert electoral law at all.

IF. Was Simon totally unaware or not? Aware but not involved. Aware to split them but didnt wnat to know? hard to say.

How does this compare to Peters? The issue is with NZFF. Peters, like Bridges is the leader of the party. Unless Peters was writing out $14999 cheques, then whats his role?

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2424109 19-Feb-2020 15:35

tdgeek:

IF. Was Simon totally unaware or not? Aware but not involved. Aware to split them but didnt wnat to know? hard to say.

How does this compare to Peters? The issue is with NZFF. Peters, like Bridges is the leader of the party. Unless Peters was writing out $14999 cheques, then whats his role?

The donations to the foundation should have been treated as donations to the party is my understanding.

There's also been claims the foundation had been paying for MP's expenses.

Some donors thought they were donating to the party, not the foundation.

Peters also claimed he had journalists running critical stories about the NZ First Foundation photographed to show some alleged bias, a photo which then ended up on Whaleoil 2.0.

Winston then furiously back-pedaled on this claim and Ardern is making a point of not asking him about it, nor will she.

This would be sad had Winston not used National's SFO investigation to hide from questions about the legality of his own party's arrangements, but instead it's just hilarious.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2424214 19-Feb-2020 20:25

GV27:

tdgeek:

IF. Was Simon totally unaware or not? Aware but not involved. Aware to split them but didnt wnat to know? hard to say.

How does this compare to Peters? The issue is with NZFF. Peters, like Bridges is the leader of the party. Unless Peters was writing out $14999 cheques, then whats his role?

The donations to the foundation should have been treated as donations to the party is my understanding.

There's also been claims the foundation had been paying for MP's expenses.

Some donors thought they were donating to the party, not the foundation.

Peters also claimed he had journalists running critical stories about the NZ First Foundation photographed to show some alleged bias, a photo which then ended up on Whaleoil 2.0.

Winston then furiously back-pedaled on this claim and Ardern is making a point of not asking him about it, nor will she.

This would be sad had Winston not used National's SFO investigation to hide from questions about the legality of his own party's arrangements, but instead it's just hilarious.

I get all that. My beef, is that both parties have been involved with donation fraud. National = an MP fraud these. Was Simon totally unaware?? Hard to see that as JLR was his right hand man, and close. I'll look for the tape tonight. But Simon is a lawyer, there will be no links, so on that he is clear. Peters, well the issue is his foundation. Was Peters directly involved? No. He stated they took legal advice, so surely thats not made up, ask their lawyer.

IMHO Peters knew and Bridges knew. But on the surface there is no need for JA to drop Peters. He didn't defraud. NZFF may have done. Bridges leads National and his MP and right hand man defrauded. Why isnt Bridges being told to step down? As for stepping down or being castigated, each of them need to be proven to be the defrauder, or be aware. If the latter isnt proven its a non issue surely?

I had some banter today with a mate re the Fury vs Wilder fight. Its the same issue as here. he states that Fury WILL win. Why? Cause he wants him to. Its the same here, the National fans want Peters out, the non National fans want Bridges out. But the fact is, both need to be proven to have fraud or been aware, that wont happen.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2424220 19-Feb-2020 20:37

MikeB4:

This election just got interesting. Unless Labour and NZ Green seriously screw up over the next few months I cannot see National or NZ First getting close to the Treasury benches. Although National has not been directly implicated I think there will sufficient doubt in the minds of the voters and they will desert them. If one is close to a fan hit with waste matter some will always stick and its presence will linger for a long time.

Its always been interesting to me. Labour has been in the doldrums, National have been in power and done nothing. They got in with zero policy. Plus my vote. They get criticised for doing nothing, underfunding. Labour gets in with huge promises, such as Kiwibuild. Lucked in with NZF.

NOW, with major sectors lacking (education, health, transport) they both have to have policies. Labour has policies and won an election on that, but has not delivered across the key ones. National rarely has policies, but nw they have to. Labour has to show it will be better, but at the end of the day, they both, for once, have to have policies.

Then there is the housing crisis, if there is one. Is there? And the international effect that we cannot control. Both of which will be used as excuses by both parties in the future campaign.

I have NO idea what will win the election. Policies? Tax cuts? Brashness? Lack of brashness? Positive campaign or a negative campaign? No idea at all.

But what will happen is either one of them will get a mandate, and they will HAVE to do what they promised. I feel the days of time for a change, and feel good rants, and kissing babies are long gone. It now needs to get serious in NZ which it rarely has been its always been about campaign jingles.

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2424240 19-Feb-2020 20:52

tdgeek:

Was Peters directly involved? No. He stated they took legal advice, so surely thats not made up, ask their lawyer.

IMHO Peters knew and Bridges knew. But on the surface there is no need for JA to drop Peters. He didn't defraud.

You seem pretty definitive about that - the SFO seems to think someone at some point has either made a false declaration about a donation or signed a fake return for a non-trivial amount. Again, Winston isn't measuring up to the standards he wanted to hold National to. Everyone else should have to be transparent but him. And it looks like Jacinda has made some misstatements about the coalition agreement and who has final say on some policy - racing industry policy, for instance.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2424249 19-Feb-2020 20:59

GV27:

tdgeek:

Was Peters directly involved? No. He stated they took legal advice, so surely thats not made up, ask their lawyer.

IMHO Peters knew and Bridges knew. But on the surface there is no need for JA to drop Peters. He didn't defraud.

You seem pretty definitive about that - the SFO seems to think someone at some point has either made a false declaration about a donation or signed a fake return for a non-trivial amount. Again, Winston isn't measuring up to the standards he wanted to hold National to. Everyone else should have to be transparent but him. And it looks like Jacinda has made some misstatements about the coalition agreement and who has final say on some policy - racing industry policy, for instance.

If the SFO has charged 4 people then Ross is complicit. Maybe it wont be proven but he's been charged. he is a National MP. Yes, it might be his sole doing to bag Bridges, but he was also his right hand man. Peters hasn't been charged, nit has anyone else yet, they took legal advice you cannot say that if it wasnt true, but why are we ignoring National who are linked to a Police charge, but we are calling for Peters to be removed?

1 | ... | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | ... | 33