John Banks to resign.

Please note this sub-forum does not provide professional finance advice. You should seek advice from a licensed financial advisor.

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

If investing please consider our affiliate link for new accounts: Sharesies.

Forums › Finance and wealth management › John Banks to resign.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1061492 8-Jun-2014 21:24

KiwiNZ: I am p!eased he is to do the honourable thing.

Now we need Kim Dotcom to bugger off and stop taking the mickey out of NZ

What's 'honourable' about him resigning. He's been convicted of a crime, and has been told either resign or get booted out. (of the Act party as their member of parliament)

As for the National Party, and John Key's attitude towards him, it's just another example of them looking after their own 'mates', no matter how what they do...

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1061493 8-Jun-2014 21:27

Sideface:
Presso: I see that John Banks is set to resign by the end of the week. ...

Best decision he ever made.

He only did it to avoid the alternative....

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1061506 8-Jun-2014 21:37

MaxLV:
KiwiNZ: I am p!eased he is to do the honourable thing.

Now we need Kim Dotcom to bugger off and stop taking the mickey out of NZ

What's 'honourable' about him resigning. He's been convicted of a crime, and has been told either resign or get booted out. (of the Act party as their member of parliament)

As for the National Party, and John Key's attitude towards him, it's just another example of them looking after their own 'mates', no matter how what they do...

Resigning is more honourable than hanging on and eventually being pushed out.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1061507 8-Jun-2014 21:40

According to the herald article he had long ago announced he would not contest the next election. This resignation makes no practical difference. He avoided this outcome long enough to get closer to an election date and avoid a byelection.

The real scandal is why the police chose not to prosecute. I would like to know more about that one.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1061509 8-Jun-2014 21:42

gzt: According to the herald article he had long ago announced he would not contest the next election. This resignation makes no practical difference. He avoided this outcome long enough to get closer to an election date and avoid a byelection.

The real scandal is why the police chose not to prosecute. I would like to know more about that one.

I would prefer to know why was Kim Dotcom allowed to enter NZ and secure permanent residence.

Yabanize

2350 posts

Uber Geek

#1061532 8-Jun-2014 22:17

KiwiNZ:
gzt: According to the herald article he had long ago announced he would not contest the next election. This resignation makes no practical difference. He avoided this outcome long enough to get closer to an election date and avoid a byelection.

The real scandal is why the police chose not to prosecute. I would like to know more about that one.

I would prefer to know why was Kim Dotcom allowed to enter NZ and secure permanent residence.

From wikipedia:

He applied for residency and received it in November 2010. The New Zealand Immigration Department made its decision on his application (despite his foreign convictions and despite his persona non grata status in Thailand) after officials used a special direction to waive "good character" requirements. Warwick Tuck, head of New Zealand Immigration, said that New Zealand granted Dotcom residency under the "investor plus" category, which allows people to gain residency if they invest $10 million in New Zealand.

It was anticipated that Dotcom would contribute to New Zealand through investment, consumption and philanthropic activities – he has given $50,000 to the mayoral fund following the Christchurch earthquake, another $50,000 to a rugby player who was left in a wheelchair after an on-field injury and funded a $600,000 fireworks display in Auckland harbour.
Mr Tuck says Dotcom disclosed his previous convictions and these had been considered, they occurred more than 16 years earlier and did not involve harming anyone.

Dotcom also told Immigration NZ his convictions had been "erased" from his record under Germany's clean-slate legislation.

Two months after New Zealand granted him residency, Dotcom was convicted in Hong Kong on several counts of failing to disclose his shareholding levels and fined 8000 Hong Kong dollars. New Zealand immigration authorities judged the convictions too minor to consider deporting him.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1061553 8-Jun-2014 22:42

KiwiNZ:
gzt: According to the herald article he had long ago announced he would not contest the next election. This resignation makes no practical difference. He avoided this outcome long enough to get closer to an election date and avoid a byelection.

The real scandal is why the police chose not to prosecute. I would like to know more about that one.

I would prefer to know why was Kim Dotcom allowed to enter NZ and secure permanent residence.

It's not a case of 'choose one and not the other' ; ).

There was a herald investigation a while back. Conclusion was, he spent a lot of money here just on consumables prior to his application and officials decided that spending was anticipated to continue and his convictions were 16 y/o so keep the money coming. Would you have made the same decision? Why/Why not?

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Athlonite

1828 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1061628 9-Jun-2014 08:56

At Least Kim Dotcom was honest about his convictions as these would no longer show up on record he really didn't need to tell NZ immigration about them at all

as for John Banks well even if he has resigned he should still suffer the full extent of the law 2years in jail and $10k fine

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1061635 9-Jun-2014 09:14

Kyanar:
pinkydot: Compare him & Len Brown.
Well at least John Banks know how to resign & Len Brown don't.

National/ACT voter perchance? Because I can only imagine that's the only explanation for how you can possibly conflate engaging in a criminal act (deliberately structuring a donation to avoid having to declare the source) and ...

Great argument, except that is precisely what Len Brown did. (Deliberately structured his donations (through a blind trust) to avoid having to declare the source(s).)

Banks declared his donations, and he was found guilty of what is essentially a clerical error around ONE of those many donations that he either did not notice, or if you agree with the Judge's finding, wilfully chose to ignore.

Hate the man, or hate his politics, by all means... But let's at least be honest about what happened here.

(And let's also look forward to prosecution of the other 32 cases of breaching the Electoral Act that have been referred to the Police... )

trig42

5809 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1061643 9-Jun-2014 09:33

I do not think John Banks is inherently dishonest.
He is polarizing, and a lot of people seriously dislike him (it was one of these people that brought this prosecution).

He was not going to stand for reelection anyway, he legally does not have to resign from parliament either (morally, yes). The fact that he is going leaves the government having to grease some palms in parliament to pass whatever remaining legislation there is before parliament rises on 31 July.

What I feel this case has highlighted (and ALL other politicians should take heed) is to stay well away from Kim Dotcom - he is poison.

Lias

5589 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1061645 9-Jun-2014 09:57

I'm a former ACT member (and fairly obviously voter). Was never a fan of Banks, but ended up repudiating ACT entirely when he came out as a literal creationist and the party didn't give him the boot. Want to believe in imaginary friends, I think your daft but be my guest. Want to believe in imaginary friends creating planets in 6 days despite the huge volume of scientific evidence against it, different story. You have no place being anywhere outside a loony bin, let alone in power in parliament as the associate minister of education.

In a related note, did anyone else find John Keys "aww yeah well actually we wouldn't have accepted his votes anyway" AFTER he resigned to be.. self serving snake oil salesman BS?

I'm a geek, a gamer, a dad, a Quic user, and an IT Professional. I have a full rack home lab, size 15 feet, an epic beard and Asperger's. I'm a bit of a Cypherpunk, who believes information wants to be free and the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. If you use my Quic signup you can also use the code R570394EKGIZ8 for free setup.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1061649 9-Jun-2014 10:11

Having never met John Banks I cannot say if I like or dislike him, I don't like his political ideals but that's a different kettle of fish. It's the same with Kim Dotcom never met so again I cannot say if I like or dislike him, but I don't like what he is doing to NZ reputation and he is taking the p***.

nakedmolerat

4629 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1061692 9-Jun-2014 11:16

6FIEND:
....Banks declared his donations, and he was found guilty of what is essentially a clerical error around ONE of those many donations that he either did not notice, or if you agree with the Judge's finding, wilfully chose to ignore. ....

Really? A clerical error that can put you in jail for up to 2 years?

ubergeeknz

3344 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Vocus

#1061694 9-Jun-2014 11:22

nakedmolerat:
6FIEND:
....Banks declared his donations, and he was found guilty of what is essentially a clerical error around ONE of those many donations that he either did not notice, or if you agree with the Judge's finding, wilfully chose to ignore. ....

Really? A clerical error that can put you in jail for up to 2 years?

Clerical error my bollocks. Dotcom of course knew about this and kept it quiet until it suited him, which is dodgy (not illegal), but I think the court has found correctly here. This was more than an oversight.

Whether this happens "all the time" is not relevant. Theft happens all the time, and that does not make it OK.

Yabanize

2350 posts

Uber Geek

#1061704 9-Jun-2014 11:41

ubergeeknz:
nakedmolerat:
6FIEND:
....Banks declared his donations, and he was found guilty of what is essentially a clerical error around ONE of those many donations that he either did not notice, or if you agree with the Judge's finding, wilfully chose to ignore. ....

Really? A clerical error that can put you in jail for up to 2 years?

Clerical error my bollocks. Dotcom of course knew about this and kept it quiet until it suited him, which is dodgy (not illegal), but I think the court has found correctly here. This was more than an oversight.

Whether this happens "all the time" is not relevant. Theft happens all the time, and that does not make it OK.

What about Sky City?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5