MaxLV: What's 'honourable' about him resigning. He's been convicted of a crime
No he hasn't. He's been found guilty. Sentencing is some way off yet. Judge Wylie has said he will consider an application for a discharge without conviction so there is a chance, exceedingly slim, that Banks will not be convicted.
MaxLV: and has been told either resign or get booted out. (of the Act party as their member of parliament)
This is contradictory to Dr Jamie Whyte's statement where he says "John and I discussed this option earlier today and we have agreed that he will take the weekend to consider his alternatives." Do you have a source (credible, not NZ Herald or Stuff...) for your claim?
gzt: The real scandal is why the police chose not to prosecute. I would like to know more about that one.
Agreed completely with this! I want to see their justification. Effectively, this has prevented a by election and allowed confidence and supply in the house where it may not have existed if he was found guilty earlier.
KiwiNZ: With the Sky City donation the Judge said he could find beyond reasonable doubt with regards to guilt so could not find guilty of a crime.
Oh right, Haha
Im quite interested to see if Kim Dotcom will actually be extradited and if he is found to be guilty of the copyright stuff
That is going to be interesting.
I would personally and quite happily go stand on the runway to stop them deporting him, im one of those that thinks he is better for NZ than most appreciate,at least hes spending a large amount of money in NZ
gzt: The real scandal is why the police chose not to prosecute. I would like to know more about that one.
Agreed completely with this! I want to see their justification. Effectively, this has prevented a by election and allowed confidence and supply in the house where it may not have existed if he was found guilty earlier.
The guy who threw mud at him will probably get a bigger sentence
I don't really like John Banks, and am kind of pleased he's gone. That being said, I do think it was reasonable for him to take a couple of days to consider his options before announcing. He deliberately acted dishonourably and unethically. Good riddance.
Len Brown should have done the same thing.
nakedmolerat:
pinkydot: Compare him & Len Brown. Well at least John Banks know how to resign & Len Brown don't.
Now that you mention Len Brown. What is he guilty of? I must have missed his trials....
No conviction, but plenty of unethical behaviour and shenanigans in office: - monkey business with the blind trust (similar to Banks) - writing references in his official capacity for someone he was sleeping with - interfering to advance the career of someone he was sleeping with - and (pre current role) all the monkey business with his credit card and expenses.
Every other politician in the country is likely quaking in their boots! As the arrangement he had set up is hardly greatly different from many others? If anything, it is the others (such as Len Brown and David Cunliffe) who have been smarter about hiding their donations.
What John Banks did is the furthest possible from corruption, as basically he got donated money to his campaign years ago and then did *not* offer help when called upon (which is what made Kim Dotcom so furious at John Banks). This is the opposite of corruption, where money gets paid for favours. And if this is how Kim Dotcom reacts to not getting a pillow while in prison from his $50k donation, what do you think he will demand, and how will he react if refused, from his millions and millions poured into the Internet Mana Party?
I am astonished John Banks got found guilty. Many things about that trial struck me as odd, for instance how on earth did the Judge find Mona DotCom (the wife of a man who has a public and hard core vendetta against Banks, and a wife who had serious basic holes in her testimony) to be a more reliable witness than John Bank's wife??
6FIEND: (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... )
Such as David Cunliffe's tweet on election day last year that encourage Christchurch East votes to vote Labour? Such a mind bogglingly blatant breach of the law by a leader of a major political party.
We'll be dreaming if we ever see the day he gets convicted on that.
6FIEND: (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... )
I realise you are being cynical, but I could not agree more with that statement.
Maintaining the integrity of the electoral system demands that these cases are prosecuted.
dman: Such as David Cunliffe's tweet on election day last year that encourage Christchurch East votes to vote Labour? Such a mind bogglingly blatant breach of the law by a leader of a major political party. We'll be dreaming if we ever see the day he gets convicted on that.
You have to start wondering if it is case of the police not wanting to annoy a potential new boss. Surely not..
dman: Every other politician in the country is likely quaking in their boots! As the arrangement he had set up is hardly greatly different from many others? If anything, it is the others (such as Len Brown and David Cunliffe) who have been smarter about hiding their donations.
If there had been more prosecutions for the minor things the politicians would shy away from these dodgy arrangements. Btw, the Cunliffe thing was an internal party election so I'm not sure that counts under national election rules anyway. Does it?
dman: I am astonished John Banks got found guilty. Many things about that trial struck me as odd, for instance how on earth did the Judge find Mona DotCom (the wife of a man who has a public and hard core vendetta against Banks, and a wife who had serious basic holes in her testimony) to be a more reliable witness than John Bank's wife??
he did? lol ... i need to watch a synopsis of the trial. should be more entertaining than fair go ...
dman: Every other politician in the country is likely quaking in their boots! As the arrangement he had set up is hardly greatly different from many others? If anything, it is the others (such as Len Brown and David Cunliffe) who have been smarter about hiding their donations.
What John Banks did is the furthest possible from corruption, as basically he got donated money to his campaign years ago and then did *not* offer help when called upon (which is what made Kim Dotcom so furious at John Banks). This is the opposite of corruption, where money gets paid for favours. And if this is how Kim Dotcom reacts to not getting a pillow while in prison from his $50k donation, what do you think he will demand, and how will he react if refused, from his millions and millions poured into the Internet Mana Party?
I am astonished John Banks got found guilty. Many things about that trial struck me as odd, for instance how on earth did the Judge find Mona DotCom (the wife of a man who has a public and hard core vendetta against Banks, and a wife who had serious basic holes in her testimony) to be a more reliable witness than John Bank's wife??
Good thing he was not charged with corruption then isn't it. He was charged with failing to declare donations properly, and he KNOWINGLY split a large donation so it did not have to be declared.
ACT is also hard line on crime, or is thins Crime is bad unless its one of our own ? That in its self is corrupt.
Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly
to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.
ID Verified
Trusted
