giggling through interviews …
I actually have a colleague who does this when asked hard questions about his science ... he actually giggles and never answers. It has proven to be a successful strategy :(
Why does this farce continue?
That's an interesting question. Key could end this at any time so why hasn't he?
Is there something else we should be looking at - something just as, or even more, corrupt ... how about letting Sky City have more pokies so they can build a convention centre that will cost the government millions to run?
Or how about selling assets, at huge financial cost to the country?
Ah who cares anyway it's three years to the next election and the the public won't remember any of this shit by then.
So he's betting that there is no phone record, interesting gamble.
John Banks is a man who takes his reputation and integrity seriously.
So you're saying he risked committing a crime to protect his appearance of integrity ...
I suspect you are right, yet another reason to not have him in parliament.
One thing I find a bit puzzling about all of this, is why? Why did Banks bother to claim the Sky City donations as anonymous?
Sky City, like many businesses, regularly makes equal donations to all the serious mayoral candidates. So everyone knew already that they were going to give the same amount to Len Brown AND John Banks.
It wouldn't surprise me to find out that Kim Dotcom had made donations to multiple candidates and not just John Banks.
So given that we know Banks is receiving donations why bother with trying to hide them. It all seems like a lot of effort to hide something that is of little real importance.
The only time it ever becomes important is if you intend to abuse your position to provide benefit to your contributors and despite personally believing that Banks is scum of the first order I actually doubt he would do that.
looking at the law, I don’t see that one washing
Graeme's blog post suggests that it's likely that Bank's can successfully argue precisely that.
He may squeeze through that loophole. However, he does not seem to be the kind of person we really want representing the citizens of New Zealand or even of Epsom ... well maybe he is appropriate to represent Epsom.
Doesn't go to 11
So legally he might be right but morally he is pretty obviously corrupt, because he would have to work quite hard to avoid legally knowing.
In short "is this the kind of person we want representing the citizens of the country?"
It all looks great David and Jen.
So when does the roof go back on? And do you have a big tarp?
Did I read the tweet correct, 80 kph house?
just be really selective about who you follow