Cunt Key

[MisterD]

I know it's a bummer but Key's shareholding dealings while spokesperson for transport amount to a higher degree of corruption than anything Clarke has done. Key's action was for personal gain.

How long a bow can you draw Skyryder? The amount of money we're talking about on that share transaction is about $20k, how much is an MP's salary, which he gives to charity anyway? How big a salary cut did JK take to become an MP?

The allegation that he deliberately used his position to make a personal gain is just stupid and illogical...but then that seems to define the left's standard of debating full stop.

[98tls]

How longs a piece of string,when it comes to politicians this countrys had that have done nothing for this country other than collect a way over the top pay check makes me think the "personal gain" thing is nothing new.

[devnull]

I'm absolutely sold now...

With sites like this one, nobody else stands a chance.
Here ya go Skyryder...

http://www.labour08.co.nr/

[Skyryder]

The allegation that he deliberately used his position to make a personal gain is just stupid and illogical...but then that seems to define the left's standard of debating full stop.

So how do you know he didn't?


Skyryder

[BIGBOSSMAN]

So how do you know he didn't?


Skyryder

So how do you know he did?


BIGBOSSMAN

[Skyryder]

So how do you know he did?


BIGBOSSMAN

Key lied about ownership of Tranz Rail shares: Labour
National leader John Key National leader John Key
Mon, 22 Sep 2008 7:40p.m.

Labour has accused John Key of lying over his ownership of Tranz Rail shares amid revelations the National Party leader failed to fully disclose his interests.

Mr Key's shareholding in the rail operator became an issue earlier this year when Labour claimed a conflict of interest because he had asked parliamentary questions about the Government's planned buyback of the country's
rail tracks while he still had a shareholding.

Despite his role at the time as National's associate transport spokesman, he did not disclose his shareholding.

When Mr Key was questioned on the issue this year he said his family trust had held 30,000 shares in the company, but had sold them on June 9 and June 12, 2003.

He said his questions and comments never led to any gains from the company's share value.

But Finance Minister Michael Cullen today released correspondence and share register information contradicting several of Mr Key's claims.

The information showed Mr Key, through his trust and under his own name, had owned 100,000 rather than 30,000 Tranz Rail shares.

Questioned on the issue before he was aware the information had been released, Mr Key said his shareholding ranged between 25,000 and 50,000 shares up until June 2003.

But when pressed on the issue he admitted there were more shares.

"Actually maybe 100,000 from memory, sometimes 50,000, sometimes 100,000, yep," he said.

"Yeah, sorry, there was 100,000 in total."

Mr Key said no one had questioned him previously on exactly how many shares he had owned.

The papers released by Dr Cullen show Mr Key personally bought 50,000 shares in Tranz Rail in May 2003 after he had actively pursued information from the Government on the company.

He sold those shares five weeks later for $51,000 - more than double their $22,500 purchase price.

However, 50,000 shares bought by his family trust in February 2002, were sold in June 2003 at a loss of $132,000.

Dr Cullen said Mr Key should have declared his shareholding to Parliament and his failure to do so was unethical.

"John Key lied because he knew he had something to hide," he said.

"Mr Key was in fact commenting publicly on Tranz Rail, meeting with bidders for the rail track and vigorously pursuing the release of commercially relevant information all while being an undisclosed shareholder in the firm."

Dr Cullen said Mr Key had spent a lot of time attacking Prime Minister Helen Clark's credibility over the New Zealand First donations scandal, but had covered up his own actions.

"For him to have in effect grossly misled both the media and the public on this I think raises that issue of trust yet again," he told reporters.
"Clearly Mr Key was not simply not forthcoming, he actually lied."

Timeline of National leader John Key's Tranz Rail share dealings:

* February 15, 2002 - Mr Key's family trust buys 30,000 shares in Tranz Rail for $108,000;

* February 19, 2002 - the trust purchases 20,000 more Tranz Rail shares for $72,000;

* July 27, 2002 - Mr Key is elected to Parliament;

* October 30, 31, 2002 - Mr Key asks parliamentary questions relating to Tranz Rail and the future of the rail track without disclosing his shareholding;

April 9, 2003 - in Parliament, Mr Key questions Finance Minister Michael Cullen about secret meetings between the Government and Tranz Rail;

* April 14, 2003 - Mr Key seeks dates and details of government meetings with Tranz Rail in written parliamentary questions;

* April 23, 2003 - Mr Key seeks copies of minutes from Government meetings with Tranz Rail from Dr Cullen, but is declined on commercial secrecy grounds;

* May 7, 2003 - Mr Key purchases 50,000 more Tranz Rail shares in his own name for $22,500;

* May 20, 2003 - in his role as National's associate transport spokesman Mr Key meets Rail America to discuss its views on Tranz Rail;

* June 10, 2003 - Mr Key sells the 50,000 Tranz Rail shares he purchased in May for $51,000;

* June 11, 2003 - under questioning by Mr Key in Parliament, Dr Cullen expresses his view that Tranz Rail is carrying hundreds of millions worth of liabilities;

* June 13, 2003 - Mr Key's family trust sells its 50,000 Tranz Rail shares for $48,000 -- a loss of $132,000.

* June 18, 2003 - Mr Key again attacks the Government's plans to buy back the rail tracks.

* October 16, 2003 - Mr Key makes an apparent hypothetical reference in the debate over Pecuniary Interests Legislation to a possible shareholding in Tranz Rail. (end)

Again I say, that though Key lost money in no way excuses his shabby dealings. If you see something else in this.........so be it.

Skyryder

[BIGBOSSMAN]

Key lied about ownership of Tranz Rail shares: Labour
National leader John Key National leader John Key
Mon, 22 Sep 2008 7:40p.m.

Labour has accused John Key of lying over his ownership of Tranz Rail shares amid revelations the National Party leader failed to fully disclose his interests.

Mr Key's shareholding in the rail operator became an issue earlier this year when Labour claimed a conflict of interest because he had asked parliamentary questions about the Government's planned buyback of the country's
rail tracks while he still had a shareholding.

Despite his role at the time as National's associate transport spokesman, he did not disclose his shareholding.

When Mr Key was questioned on the issue this year he said his family trust had held 30,000 shares in the company, but had sold them on June 9 and June 12, 2003.

He said his questions and comments never led to any gains from the company's share value.

But Finance Minister Michael Cullen today released correspondence and share register information contradicting several of Mr Key's claims.

The information showed Mr Key, through his trust and under his own name, had owned 100,000 rather than 30,000 Tranz Rail shares.

Questioned on the issue before he was aware the information had been released, Mr Key said his shareholding ranged between 25,000 and 50,000 shares up until June 2003.

But when pressed on the issue he admitted there were more shares.

"Actually maybe 100,000 from memory, sometimes 50,000, sometimes 100,000, yep," he said.

"Yeah, sorry, there was 100,000 in total."

Mr Key said no one had questioned him previously on exactly how many shares he had owned.

The papers released by Dr Cullen show Mr Key personally bought 50,000 shares in Tranz Rail in May 2003 after he had actively pursued information from the Government on the company.

He sold those shares five weeks later for $51,000 - more than double their $22,500 purchase price.

However, 50,000 shares bought by his family trust in February 2002, were sold in June 2003 at a loss of $132,000.

Dr Cullen said Mr Key should have declared his shareholding to Parliament and his failure to do so was unethical.

"John Key lied because he knew he had something to hide," he said.

"Mr Key was in fact commenting publicly on Tranz Rail, meeting with bidders for the rail track and vigorously pursuing the release of commercially relevant information all while being an undisclosed shareholder in the firm."

Dr Cullen said Mr Key had spent a lot of time attacking Prime Minister Helen Clark's credibility over the New Zealand First donations scandal, but had covered up his own actions.

"For him to have in effect grossly misled both the media and the public on this I think raises that issue of trust yet again," he told reporters.
"Clearly Mr Key was not simply not forthcoming, he actually lied."

Timeline of National leader John Key's Tranz Rail share dealings:

* February 15, 2002 - Mr Key's family trust buys 30,000 shares in Tranz Rail for $108,000;

* February 19, 2002 - the trust purchases 20,000 more Tranz Rail shares for $72,000;

* July 27, 2002 - Mr Key is elected to Parliament;

* October 30, 31, 2002 - Mr Key asks parliamentary questions relating to Tranz Rail and the future of the rail track without disclosing his shareholding;

April 9, 2003 - in Parliament, Mr Key questions Finance Minister Michael Cullen about secret meetings between the Government and Tranz Rail;

* April 14, 2003 - Mr Key seeks dates and details of government meetings with Tranz Rail in written parliamentary questions;

* April 23, 2003 - Mr Key seeks copies of minutes from Government meetings with Tranz Rail from Dr Cullen, but is declined on commercial secrecy grounds;

* May 7, 2003 - Mr Key purchases 50,000 more Tranz Rail shares in his own name for $22,500;

* May 20, 2003 - in his role as National's associate transport spokesman Mr Key meets Rail America to discuss its views on Tranz Rail;

* June 10, 2003 - Mr Key sells the 50,000 Tranz Rail shares he purchased in May for $51,000;

* June 11, 2003 - under questioning by Mr Key in Parliament, Dr Cullen expresses his view that Tranz Rail is carrying hundreds of millions worth of liabilities;

* June 13, 2003 - Mr Key's family trust sells its 50,000 Tranz Rail shares for $48,000 -- a loss of $132,000.

* June 18, 2003 - Mr Key again attacks the Government's plans to buy back the rail tracks.

* October 16, 2003 - Mr Key makes an apparent hypothetical reference in the debate over Pecuniary Interests Legislation to a possible shareholding in Tranz Rail. (end)

Again I say, that though Key lost money in no way excuses his shabby dealings. If you see something else in this.........so be it.

Skyryder

'Bout sums it up.

BIGBOSSMAN

[Jantar]

Key lied about ownership of Tranz Rail shares: ........... If you see something else in this.........so be it.

Skyryder

Yes, he did trade in Transrail shares when he shouldn't have. Yes, he got caught out. But when confronted with the facts, he admitted it. End of story.

Labour and NZ first, when confronted with dodgy practices, have denied, them, blamed someone else, or changed the law to make what they did legal after the fact.

Key may have done wrong, but compared to Labour he comes across as a saint.

[BIGBOSSMAN]

Last time I checked the news I found no mention of John Key under investigation by the SFO. He's bloody clean as matey

[MisterD]

So how do you know he didn't?


Skyryder

Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is the most likely.

Which is most likely?

a) John Key took a huge pay cut to become an MP (and gives the majority of that salary to charity) so he can insider trade to the tune of $20k on Tranzrail shares.

b) John Key had a large portfolio of New Zealand shares managed by his broker. Sometime around the end of his first year as a n00b MP he realises this might cause conflict of interest issues as he becomes more senior and dumps all his NZ shares.


Point of fact on your later timeline post, he did not lie and say he only had 30,000 shares. It's a subtle, but significant difference, but when he was accused by Liarbour of owning 30,000 shares he admitted it and said he had sold them before whatever significant date - which was absolutely true.

He then probably went away and found that he'd had more, and at this point made the mistake of deciding to let sleeping dogs lie.

[Hinny]

We need to get beyond that and our representatives are the Fourth estate = the media. If our journalists refused to be drawn into the mud slinging - (such as Keys ownership of shares in 2003 for Pete's sake!!! ) and asked questions about the balance of trade, emigration to Australia etc, we might, just might, start to talk about some important stuff.

Our representatives are actually the Politicians.
The mud slinging is coming from the media. How often do we hear that the economy is in trouble?
Latest published terms of trade are the best in Thirty Four years! That's the reality.
The thing with emigration to Australia is that it can be viewed as beneficial to both countries. Raises the average IQ of both.

[Skyryder]

Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is the most likely.

Which is most likely?

a) John Key took a huge pay cut to become an MP (and gives the majority of that salary to charity) so he can insider trade to the tune of $20k on Tranzrail shares.

b) John Key had a large portfolio of New Zealand shares managed by his broker. Sometime around the end of his first year as a n00b MP he realises this might cause conflict of interest issues as he becomes more senior and dumps all his NZ shares.


Point of fact on your later timeline post, he did not lie and say he only had 30,000 shares. It's a subtle, but significant difference, but when he was accused by Liarbour of owning 30,000 shares he admitted it and said he had sold them before whatever significant date - which was absolutely true.

He then probably went away and found that he'd had more, and at this point made the mistake of deciding to let sleeping dogs lie.

He lied on TV One. "30000 max No 100000. Yep." All NZ saw it but you.


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is the most likely.

Which is most likely?

He lied.



Why? becasue he had something to hide.



Skyryder.

[Hitcher]

He lied on TV One. "30000 max. No 100000. Yep." All NZ saw it but you.

So saying something, immediately realising that what you said was wrong and then immediately correcting what you said is a "lie"?

That's not the definition I use for lying. Where I come from a lie is the act of being deliberately untruthful.

[RiderInBlack]

He lied.



Why? becasue he had something to hide.

Yes he did.
Yes he had.
But then he is a Politician, that's what they do for a living
Don't know which I find funnier:

• A Politician saying another Politician can't be trusted because they have been CAUGHT at a lie.
• People getting defensive about their Politician, when it is obvious that they have done wrong and have lied.
• Or that some people think that their Politician is truthful and doesn't lie (well not as much as the Politician they don't like).

Think about it people. How many Politicians would have got ya vote if they really told ya the truth about what they are going ta do once they are in power. There is always something unpopular that needs ta be done to run a Country. SO they have to be good liers to get in. They'll promise ya Roses ta get in and once they are in ya get the Thorns. All we get ta choose is which Lier we have.