Hard News: John Banks: The volunteer did it
100 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
OK, so apparently I’m held to a higher standard of responsibility when I sign my tax return than I would be signing a campaign finance return while seeking public office. An office where, presumably, I’d have some not-inconsiderable influence over the disposition of billions in public funds and be expected to get my head around a never-ending stack of papers awaiting my signature?
That’s comforting.
-
You know, if I were a politician (snort), I'd be really really pissed off that Banks is allowed in the same room as me.
It must be hard for the genuinely honest and passionate politicians to have their job smeared by the disgustingly dishonest and dishonorable, behaviour of a few (well I hope it's a few).
-
From http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6871058/Kim-Dotcom-releases-John-Banks-song
"Prime Minister John Key has said he will strip Banks of his ministerial warrants if he is found to be lying over Dotcom's donation."
Yes, Prime Minister.......
-
Jeremy Andrew, in reply to
Normally, a candidate is accountable to the people who vote for them as well as the law, but in the case, it isn't just a corrupt candidate, it's a corrupt electorate.
"And our slogan shall be, 'a rotten candidate for a rotten borough'."
- Mr E. Blackadder -
Matthew Poole, in reply to
I’m held to a higher standard of responsibility when I sign my tax return than I would be signing a local body election campaign finance return
FTFY.
Seriously, people are overlooking that Banks would have been thoroughly nailed if he'd tried it for a general election.
The Local Elections Act is absolutely a nonsense, with holes sufficient to fit a supertanker through beam-on, but that doesn't mean we allow all political candidates to get away with shit of this nature.
-
FletcherB, in reply to
It must be hard for the genuinely honest and passionate politicians
I genuinely hope such things exist, but a cynical mind would suggest that doubts remain.... certainly, evidence to the contrary (in individual examples) is wide-spread.
How wide-spread does the taint of power seeking and self aggrandizement, or just telling little porkies to help embellish a valid argument have to be (to say nothing of outright lies and corruption in this particular case) have to be before you right them ALL off, as not worth trusting 100%? -
WH, in reply to
To say this is unconvincing is something of an understatement.
I agree with Anna Simkiss’ comment. I understand Graeme’s supremely fair reluctance to second guess the Police, but without a disclosure of the underlying facts, the letter to Mallard doesn’t seem particularly compelling. This all reminds me that John Banks once served as New Zealand’s Minister of Police.
As with intent, the knowledge of an accused can only be proven by inference from known facts. As you’ve pointed out, John Banks’ claim to have been unaware of these donations is unconvincing. I just don’t see how he can call to say thanks for the split donation yet fail to be responsible for the way in which the payments were recorded on his own damn return. I can’t say whether the doctrines of constructive and imputed knowledge could be made to apply to the disclosure provisions of the LEA, but it would have been an interesting argument.
The other thing this reminds me of is that John Banks spent years demonising the unlucky, the unloved and the downright dishonest on talkback. So if there is anything we know for sure about the man, it is that he is a goose. The sauce for this particular goose tastes a lot like the fact that John Banks is a big fat hypocrite. So there you have it, John Banks: the man, the goose, the weasel, the talkback dragon, the paper tiger and bad egg is also a complete bullshitter.
-
WH,
Ana: my avatar has a crush on your avatar. Could you possibly paint it blue?
-
I imagine Banks is disappointed to realise at this stage of his life that he's no better a person than his dear dad was. And that others see him like that too.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
Banks would have been thoroughly nailed if he'd tried it for a general election
Well, the texts of the two acts are very similar:
Local Electoral Act - 134 / False return
(1)Every candidate commits an offence who transmits a return of electoral expenses knowing that it is false in any material particular, and is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to a fine not exceeding $10,000
(2)Every candidate commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 who transmits a return of electoral expenses that is false in any material particular unless the candidate proves—
(a)that he or she had no intention to mis-state or conceal the facts; and
(b)that he or she took all reasonable steps to ensure that the information was accurate.Electoral Act s205N
(2)A candidate who files a return under section 205K that is false in any material particular is guilty of—
(a)**a corrupt practice** if he or she filed the return knowing it to be false in any material particular; or
(b)**an illegal practice** in any other case unless the candidate proves that—
(i)he or she had no intention to misstate or conceal the facts; and
(ii)he or she took all reasonable steps in the circumstances to ensure that the information was accurate.The only differences I can parse from that is that:
- the less serious offence (not having personal knowledge of the falsehood) carries a larger fine for national elections
- the time limit is three years for national, six months for localAs far as I can see, if Banks had behaved the same way in the Epsom election, he would have been fined up to $40k (I'm sure one of his backers would have met the bill) but could still have stayed in his seat. s224 (2)
Interestingly, I can find nothing in either act that deals with a case where the delay in an offence becoming apparent is due to a candidate's concealment of that offence.
-
Sacha, in reply to
he or she took all reasonable steps to ensure that the information was accurate
Like reading the return, perhaps?
Seriously, how do the Police justify not laying charges and letting a court judge the matter?
-
merc, in reply to
Seriously, how do the Police justify not laying charges and letting a court judge the matter?
That's the problem with the system right there, they don't. Bought and paid for.
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
Like reading the return, perhaps?
Seriously, how do the Police justify not laying charges and letting a court judge the matter?
There is a six month time limit for that charge. Approximately 10 months had passed when they were first asked to investigate. Had police chosen to charge in that circumstance, I'd be calling for heads. We have limitation periods for a reason, and even if that reason is stupid, they're still the law and I expect police to abide by them.
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
The only differences I can parse from that is that:
- the less serious offence (not having personal knowledge of the falsehood) carries a larger fine for national elections
- the time limit is three years for national, six months for localThe major differences are in bits about what the returns have to include. Large anonymous donations are not allowed to be made to parliamentary candidates. Trusts cannot be used to hide the names of donors to parliamentary candidates. etc.
-
Sacha, in reply to
There is a six month time limit for that charge
Ah, got you - that clarifying clause only applies to the lesser offence.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Is there any case law around this key phrase from 134(1) that might have guided the Police's assessment of whether to lodge a case?:
knowing that it is false in any material particular
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
Although, one could, if minded, donate to ACT, via the electoral commission, $27423 or something similar. Easy for the recipient to decode.
-
I would just like to encourage people to have their say about the MMP reviews proposals.
See http://pundit.co.nz/content/is-someone-trying-to-game-the-mmp-review for some reasons why.
Participate! -
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
What more would anyone like them to have done in this case?
Well, given a court just found a case to answer, they could have just dug out and presented the evidence?
-
Banks resigns his porfolios, For now.Why doesn't he do us all a bloody favour and just piss off all together.
-
Islander, in reply to
Sof' - I'd prefer he evaporate - pissing off means he'd leave a nasty trickle of himself &
*the environment doesnt need that!* -
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
*the environment doesnt need that!*
Shit has its purpose. Why, even prisoners use it to throw against walls. Surely they could find a use for him. ;)
-
Islander, in reply to
Compost?
Okaaaaaay-
(just never wanting to use it in my garden!)
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Stella's friends fleas are nicer :) I say friend because Stella doesn't have fleas.Maybe he could go be Key's man servant in Hawaii? That suits me.
-
Islander, in reply to
Heh!
Would suit his servile-to-powers that be eh?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.