Winston Peters - our 6 Weeks PM

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

Forums › Politics › Winston Peters - our 6 Weeks PM

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2036031 13-Jun-2018 16:38

Geektastic:

MikeB4:

Wiggum:

MikeB4:

@Wiggum it is irrelevant who is running the government that Mr Peters is suing. If I read you correctly by being in Government Mr Peters should forgo his rights, now that would be a bad political move. As for the defense team that will be paid for by the defendants which is normal in any legal case.

Maybe its irrelevant. But its still comically amusing that he is suing his own government. Does not matter how I try and look at it, its politically absurd.

As for Mr peters forgoing his rights... Nice straw-man there Mike. I did not say say or imply that, as I said above its his right! If he wants to pursue with his madness of suing his own government, then maybe he should do that on his own watch, ie outside of business hours would be a good start. Or take leave without pay to do it.

Some crystal ball gazing here, what will be your attitude if Mr Peters wins his case and is awarded substantial compensation by the Court?

Mine would be that he should not be awarded anything. He's a politician, who volunteered to be under scrutiny and was aware of all that may entail, such as allegedly being the subject of leaks regarding allegedly dodgy practices. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Like you, me and other New Zealanders his dealings with MSD are confidential.

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

dwilson

162 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 123

#2036032 13-Jun-2018 16:41

Geektastic:

Mine would be that he should not be awarded anything. He's a politician, who volunteered to be under scrutiny and was aware of all that may entail, such as allegedly being the subject of leaks regarding allegedly dodgy practices. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

So you think that Government Ministers should be free to release private information of opposition ministers?

Imagine the talented individuals we'd attract to our political ranks with that chaos.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#2036338 14-Jun-2018 09:12

dwilson:

Geektastic:

Mine would be that he should not be awarded anything. He's a politician, who volunteered to be under scrutiny and was aware of all that may entail, such as allegedly being the subject of leaks regarding allegedly dodgy practices. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

So you think that Government Ministers should be free to release private information of opposition ministers?

Imagine the talented individuals we'd attract to our political ranks with that chaos.

Strawman alert

dwilson

162 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 123

#2036342 14-Jun-2018 09:18

Wiggum:

dwilson:

So you think that Government Ministers should be free to release private information of opposition ministers?

Imagine the talented individuals we'd attract to our political ranks with that chaos.

Strawman alert

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 589
Inactive user

#2036377 14-Jun-2018 10:07

dwilson:

Wiggum:

dwilson:

So you think that Government Ministers should be free to release private information of opposition ministers?

Imagine the talented individuals we'd attract to our political ranks with that chaos.

Strawman alert

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means

Wikipedia defines a Strawman argument as follows:

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.[2][3]

Given that you presented a different proposition (Government Ministers should be free to release private information of opposition ministers) to what was proposed (He's a politician, who volunteered to be under scrutiny and was aware of all that may entail, such as allegedly being the subject of leaks), then it qualifies as a textbook example of a straw man.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#2038319 15-Jun-2018 14:10

MikeB4:

Some crystal ball gazing here, what will be your attitude if Mr Peters wins his case and is awarded substantial compensation by the Court?

At the end of the day its taxpayers money. Winston is seeking $1.8million from us taxpayers. 100 times the $18000 he illegally received in superannuation over payments. If he wins the case it will be a profitable day for one person only, but a dam expensive day for us taxpayers. Lets just say my attitude towards him will decline.

Interesting snipet:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1806/S00124/attorney-general-must-fight-for-taxpayers-in-peters-case.htm

Attorney General must fight for taxpayers in Peters case

If Rt Hon Winston Peters does not succeed in his legal action against the Crown, Attorney General David Parker must commit to seeking costs, says the New Zealand Taxpayers' Union.

Taxpayers' Union co-founder David Farrar says, “Winston Peters certainly has the right to sue the Government, just as any individual does. However, the Attorney General needs to exercise independence and protect the interests of taxpayers regardless of the case’s outcome.”

“Namely, if Mr Peters either loses his case or withdraws his claim (as he has with others), the Crown should seek full costs to ensure taxpayers aren’t left footing the legal bill.”

“We realise it will be difficult for the David Parker to seek costs from his boss, the Acting Prime Minister, but this is an important test of his independence and integrity.”

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2038326 15-Jun-2018 14:36

@Wiggum my understanding is Mr Peters is seeking $450,000 in damages and not $1.8 million. Also you have not said much about the breach of privacy. ALL New Zealanders dealings with MSD are confidential. The rule under which ALL staff at MSD work is that the dealings they have with the public are confidential and dealings with other government agencies are governed by very strict regulations with regards to the sharing of information. If Mr Peters right of privacy was deliberately breached he has the right to seek compensation for which will be decided in appropriate place that is in court.

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

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#2038334 15-Jun-2018 14:49

MikeB4: @Wiggum my understanding is Mr Peters is seeking $450,000 in damages and not $1.8 million.

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2018/06/12/118327/deputy-pm-seeks-million-plus-from-state

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2038338 15-Jun-2018 14:55

Wiggum:

MikeB4: @Wiggum my understanding is Mr Peters is seeking $450,000 in damages and not $1.8 million.

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2018/06/12/118327/deputy-pm-seeks-million-plus-from-state

The court filing says he wants $450,000 in damages. The $1.8 million appears to be press speculation

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

elpenguino

3577 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2939

#2042783 23-Jun-2018 12:05

6FIEND:

frednz:

However, when questioned whether the Prime Minister can have "private matters", especially as the legal action involved the people he was in charge of, Ardern said he could.

That is a particularly interesting quote from Ardern, given that she (along with the Labour Party at large) were so vociferous in their argument that this was NOT the case for John Key. (When he made the argument that he could take phone calls (from Cameron Slater if I recall correctly) in a private/personal capacity and that was different from acting in his capacity as Prime Minister.)

There is a very un-parliamentary word for that - it starts with an H.

Actually the cases are quite different. Perhaps you are unaware of the details of the relationship between slater and key - read dirty politics if you want the full story. In brief:

In the case of slater and key, key's 'personal' calls and texts were to feed titbits of information to slater in order for slater to craft requests for official information. These requests would be processed as soon as requested for because they were damaging to national's opponents. The information would then be used slater and other national attack dogs.

In the case of peters, the information is related to his personal income and was made into a political matter by those who leaked it and who stood to gain from it.

He's got a good reason to feel aggrieved.

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

elpenguino

3577 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2939

#2042784 23-Jun-2018 12:08

MikeB4:

Geektastic:

MikeB4:

Wiggum:

MikeB4:

@Wiggum it is irrelevant who is running the government that Mr Peters is suing. If I read you correctly by being in Government Mr Peters should forgo his rights, now that would be a bad political move. As for the defense team that will be paid for by the defendants which is normal in any legal case.

Maybe its irrelevant. But its still comically amusing that he is suing his own government. Does not matter how I try and look at it, its politically absurd.

As for Mr peters forgoing his rights... Nice straw-man there Mike. I did not say say or imply that, as I said above its his right! If he wants to pursue with his madness of suing his own government, then maybe he should do that on his own watch, ie outside of business hours would be a good start. Or take leave without pay to do it.

Some crystal ball gazing here, what will be your attitude if Mr Peters wins his case and is awarded substantial compensation by the Court?

Mine would be that he should not be awarded anything. He's a politician, who volunteered to be under scrutiny and was aware of all that may entail, such as allegedly being the subject of leaks regarding allegedly dodgy practices. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Like you, me and other New Zealanders his dealings with MSD are confidential.

Well they should be in any case.

leaking it was a stupid idea anyway. It wasnt his fault and he corrected it as soon as he knew. I can't fathom what his opponents thought they would gain although as it turned out, it was the opposition benches.

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

elpenguino

3577 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2939

#2042786 23-Jun-2018 12:10

Wiggum:

MikeB4:

Some crystal ball gazing here, what will be your attitude if Mr Peters wins his case and is awarded substantial compensation by the Court?

Taxpayers' Union co-founder David Farrar says, “Winston Peters certainly has the right to sue the Government, just as any individual does. However, the Attorney General needs to exercise independence and protect the interests of taxpayers regardless of the case’s outcome.”

David Farrar's in a union now? Oh boy, and they say a leopard can't change its' spots.

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#2042832 23-Jun-2018 14:03

elpenguino:

6FIEND:

frednz:

However, when questioned whether the Prime Minister can have "private matters", especially as the legal action involved the people he was in charge of, Ardern said he could.

That is a particularly interesting quote from Ardern, given that she (along with the Labour Party at large) were so vociferous in their argument that this was NOT the case for John Key. (When he made the argument that he could take phone calls (from Cameron Slater if I recall correctly) in a private/personal capacity and that was different from acting in his capacity as Prime Minister.)

There is a very un-parliamentary word for that - it starts with an H.

Actually the cases are quite different. Perhaps you are unaware of the details of the relationship between slater and key - read dirty politics if you want the full story. In brief:

In the case of slater and key, key's 'personal' calls and texts were to feed titbits of information to slater in order for slater to craft requests for official information. These requests would be processed as soon as requested for because they were damaging to national's opponents. The information would then be used slater and other national attack dogs.

In the case of peters, the information is related to his personal income and was made into a political matter by those who leaked it and who stood to gain from it.

He's got a good reason to feel aggrieved.

I dont read filthy trash...

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 589
Inactive user

#2043933 26-Jun-2018 09:42

...this man takes his role extremely seriously.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 589
Inactive user

#2043974 26-Jun-2018 10:29

These men mean businesses :-)

https://ytcropper.com/cropped/A45b316fe11921d

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7