Good Old Winston

[Fatt Max]

Dont know about you happy bunnies, but this whole Winston Peters thing is as about as boring as watching Simon Dallow tie his frikken' shoelaces.

Does anyone really care out there? All I would say is that if 'Winnie' is found guilty and is given the arse, he can always whip over to Vegas and give O J Simpson a hand.

I mean, there is a guy with the integrity of Suzanne Paul's crusty undies after a night out down the CBD.........:shit:

[Hitcher]

Could somebody please remind me of what exactly Winston is supposed to be guilty of?

[BIGBOSSMAN]

he can always whip over to Vegas and give O J Simpson a hand.

:tugger::tugger::shit:

[MisterD]

Could somebody please remind me of what exactly Winston is supposed to be guilty of?

1) Spending his entire political career denoucing his political opponents for being funded by "big business" whilst fiddling his party's books to hide the fact that he was as well.

2) Taking money from fishing interests to shut-down the scampi enquiry.

3) Taking money from racing interests to push for big tax breaks for the industry.

The interesting bit is that it's now fairly obvious that Labour bribed Winston with Owen Glen's money to support their government. The Maori's turned their bribe down...how much did the Greens get?

Banana anyone?

[Skyryder]

And I see Henry and Winstone have now 'changed' their story. I was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt..............but I'll take a stab in the dark that Winstone will face charges. I won't go as far as to say whether he will be found guilty or not but he's a done turkey one way or the other be it basted or boiled.


Skyyrder

[mowgli]

He's an oxygen thief. End of.

[Patrick]

Could somebody please remind me of what exactly Winston is supposed to be guilty of?

He is a "Politician..."

[RantyDave]

Could somebody please remind me of what exactly Winston is supposed to be guilty of?
Under the electoral finance act, donations over a certain amount ($50k IIRC) need to be declared. This is an invention of our current government who are pissed that the insane bretheren gave so much time and money to the National party (and are relieved it finally bit them in the arse). Winston didn't really feel like declaring that he had taken $100k from Owen Glen and so instructed his lawyer to "solicit" the donation then pass the donation on to a third party, the Spencer family trust. The Spencer family trust then used the money to aid Mr Peters, ironically by paying his legal bills.

So what Winston is trying to pull is the assertion that from a legal standpoint he had nothing to do with it. He didn't solicit the donation and the money was never passed to either him or NZ First. Owen Glen, on the other hand, is quite clear about how Winston did request $100k, remembers his lawyer sending the email saying "send the cash to this escrow account here", and is pissed that the guy he gave $100k to is now calling him a liar.

And, let's face it, even if you're a billionaire expat, are you going to respond to a lawyer coming up to you and saying "would you please donate $100k to a cause I can't tell you about"? Is it more likely that, in a face to face but presumably off the record chat with Winston Peters, he suggests that he is about to be the minister for racing but is short $100k or so and thinks that a wee donationette may see him being perhaps slightly more lax on the industry than he may have been otherwise.

That is why he's in trouble.

Dave

[Tank]

That is why he's in trouble.

Dave

Correction - that's ONE of the reasons he is in trouble.

There is also the serious fraud investigations (also to do with the trust), the other issues about accepting 'gifts' from dodgy businessmen (fights in Las Vegas), the scampi issues ($50k to go away) etc etc etc.

He could actually end up facing jail time from the SFO enquiry (we can only hope).

[slofox]

"would you please donate $100k to a cause I can't tell you about"?

Hmmmmmm do you suppose that would work for me? I could sure use $100k.....

[AllanB]

Could somebody please remind me of what exactly Winston is supposed to be guilty of?

I think it has something to do with the earlier mentioned Suzanne Pauls crusty undies

Apparently she held up a card spelling "NO" but Peters ignored it as he believes that No does not always mean NO and went ahead with his 'donation' onto her undies.

His lawyer claims to have been given the crusty undies but will not say by who.

Suzanne has produced the time and dates pertaining to the offending crusty undies, plus she has a witness who heard Peters thanking her for allowing him to crustify her undies.

The labour party apparently sniffed said undies some months ago and did not expose this to the public.

National has stated that due to the crusty undies incident they will not work with Peters.

And I think Owen Glenn may have been responsible for transporting the undies around New Zealand. But I do understand he has made a sizeable donation of his own to Aunty Helen.

The public is now sick of being treated as if they are something pubic by all parties involved and is favoring National.

Pretty simple really.......

[Swoop]

Under the electoral finance act, donations over a certain amount ($50k IIRC) need to be declared.
Think lower...
$10k is the declaration limit.

[Mom]

Can we make KB an electioneering free zone?

We all have our (hopefully well informed and researched) opinions on how we should vote and who should govern NZ. We talk about this all the time on here. Good debates too, I have even joined in a few of them. My plea here?

No election debates during the course of this campaign.

I am really good friends with people that dont vote the way I do. The reason we remain such good friends is we dont discuss politics around this time of the electoral cycle. Can we just :shutup:

I reckon Bliss Ninny would have been a better Flame warrior nomination for me :innocent:

[maybe]

:calm::Playnice:

[Trudes]

I reckon Bliss Ninny would have been a better Flame warrior nomination for me :innocent:

Ask and you shall recieve.....:laugh:

[Mom]

Ask and you shall recieve.....:laugh:

Golly gosh and darn it! Now I have to change my signature again *sigh*

Hope I get more votes for this one than Fragile Femme :yes:

Fanks Trudes :love:

[Tank]

Could somebody please remind me of what exactly Winston is supposed to be guilty of?

Found this reading Stuff this morning and thought it a good summary:

STUDYING THE FACTS

* THE PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE: Is investigating whether Winston Peters should have declared in the MPs' Register of Pecuniary Interests the $100,000 paid by expatriate shipping billionaire Owen Glenn toward the failed 2005 Tauranga electoral petition. In question is whether the payment meets the definition of a gift or discharged debt, which, in part, hinges on whether Mr Peters asked Mr Glenn for the money and when he knew it had been paid. Mr Peters says he did not know about it till his lawyer, Brian Henry, told him this year. They say there was no debt as Mr Henry did not bill Mr Peters for his services, instead soliciting donations from others. The 13-member committee finished hearing evidence yesterday, and is expected to deliberate further tomorrow before reporting to Parliament on Tuesday.

* THE SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE: It is investigating whether donations intended for NZ First paid through the Spencer Trust made it to the party, including $25,000 from property investor Sir Robert Jones. Trustee Grant Currie said this week it should drop the inquiry after it was given proof the money was passed on. SFO director Grant Liddell says the inquiry is proceeding "expeditiously".

* POLICE: Officers are investigating NZ First's failure to declare $80,000 donated from the Spencer Trust last year. By law, all donations above $10,000 must be declared.

* THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION: NZ First has till September 30 to submit amended donation returns for 2005, 2006 and 2007 and explain why the originals were wrong after it failed to declare more than $234,000 from the trust. As well as $80,000 last year, the trust paid bills of $87,000 in 2006 and another $17,000 in bills and a $50,000 donation in 2005. The 2005 and 2006 returns are not subject to criminal action as there is a six-month deadline for prosecution.

[Patrick]

I think he still owns that flash holiday home up north.....?????????

Rates must have gone up some what..........