Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: #JohnDotBanks and all

282 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 12 Newer→ Last

  • Tom Semmens,

    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?

    John Banks on casinos, 1997:

    “They’re wide boys, they’re flash boys, they’re big boys and they can take it. Because the little people of this country have been sucked, hung, drawn, quartered, bled by these people in these casinos,”

    John Banks is a man who takes his reputation and integrity seriously. So seriously that he would willingly conspire to conceal anything that calls it into question…

    The Kim Dotcom thing is more straight forward IMHO, and it is straight snobbery from John Banks. It is essential for the anxious nouveau riche to have unimpeachable credentials when moving amongst their better bred establishment peers. Many and varied have been those who have had clearly held their noses when discussing the vulgar, jolly and annoyingly very, very wealthy Mr. Dotcom – who to makes matters worse seems to not care not a jot about who is who. Such a continental indifference to class, where will it all end, with the French?

    So when his “friend” Kim Dotcom came looking for a brother to help him out when he got into a sticky bit of bother with the Godzillasaurus of all establishments, it was all about deniability delivered with as much froideur as a self made shopkeeper from Whangarei can plausibly manage.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1817 posts Report Reply

  • Euan Mason, in reply to Rich of Observationz,

    Rich of Observationz, in reply to Hebe, About 2 hours ago

    Email

    Maybe if National became a left-wing party.

    (There is precedent for this – the US Democrats and Republicans effectively swapped political sides during the late 19th / early 20th century).

    Some would argue that it happened in NZ during the 80s, on economic policy.

    Canterbury • Since Jul 2008 • 193 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen, in reply to Tom Semmens,

    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.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3434 posts Report Reply

  • Mark Graham,

    Snap survey amongst my staff – they still think Key is better than the alternatives. A vote for Goff was going backwards. Banks might be dodgy but he’s not Key, so there’s minimal transference of ickiness. Key remains clean.

    We know better.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 180 posts Report Reply

  • DeepRed, in reply to Mark Graham,

    Snap survey amongst my staff – they still think Key is better than the alternatives. A vote for Goff was going backwards. Banks might be dodgy but he’s not Key, so there’s minimal transference of ickiness. Key remains clean.

    We know better.

    Could it be the "Essex Man/Waitakere Man" effect? Or a mild case of treading water?

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 4403 posts Report Reply

  • 3410,

    Auckland • Since Jan 2007 • 2618 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen, in reply to 3410,

    So he's betting that there is no phone record, interesting gamble.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3434 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to Hebe,

    That is not possible with a Key National govt but it could be possible with a different National. govt.

    You make the false assumption that Key is leading, when he is only fronting this National government. Joyce, Brownlee and McCully would still be there, and Collins and a few others, even if Key was forced to swallow political hemlock. He has no idea, ideals or ideology to lead with - he just wants to be PM.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2189 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    Helpful details from Kim Dotcom to assist the police inquiries, to be sure { ;)

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6320 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to Mark Graham,

    Snap survey amongst my staff – they still think Key is better than the alternatives. A vote for Goff was going backwards. Banks might be dodgy but he’s not Key, so there’s minimal transference of ickiness. Key remains clean.

    Had a chat with an old colleague the other week, good bloke, otherwise intelligent, yet he tried to convince me that he'd voted for National because "their plan was better than Labour's". What it finally boiled down to, for him, was that Key had been "in business" and made a shitload of money so he must know what he's doing. It's enough to make you cry.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2189 posts Report Reply

  • 3410,

    So he's betting that there is no phone record, interesting gamble.

    No, he claims he did call to thank him... but for something else!

    (unless you mean "no phone recording", in which case, he certainly is).

    Auckland • Since Jan 2007 • 2618 posts Report Reply

  • Hebe, in reply to nzlemming,

    You make the false assumption that Key is leading, when he is only fronting this National government. Joyce, Brownlee and McCully would still be there, and Collins and a few others, even if Key was forced to swallow political hemlock. He has no idea, ideals or ideology to lead with - he just wants to be PM.

    I don't think of John Key as purely a frontman. There is more substance, even though his ideology is not what I agree with -- and that he thinks differently to me about many things doesn't make him bad per se.

    Christchurch • Since May 2011 • 2613 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to Bart Janssen,

    So he's betting that there is no phone record, interesting gamble.

    My guess is that he looked at his phone records for the period around April, found nothing and so thought he was sweet. Now Dotcom says June. heheh, we'll just see...

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2189 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Semmens, in reply to Bart Janssen,

    So he’s betting that there is no phone record, interesting gamble.

    Phone records are normally only stored by phone companies for around three-six months in an easily retrievable format. I am not sure of the current regulatory environment for keeping them for longer, but even if they are it would be in off-line storage formats of uncertain reliability.

    Assuming it was a mobile call, if John Bank's keeps his itemised phone records going back to 2010 then I'd be burning them all around now.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1817 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to Hebe,

    I don't think of John Key as purely a frontman. There is more substance, even though his ideology is not what I agree with -- and that he thinks differently to me about many things doesn't make him bad per se.

    Then you think far better of him than I do, after viewing his flipflops, his vacillations, his reluctance to actually take a stand on anything until he's seen the polling results.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2189 posts Report Reply

  • Michael Homer, in reply to BenWilson,

    ACT getting Epsom gives National an effective bonus seat, even if they got no further seats. Why? Because ACT’s seat does not count against the National total seats. If National won the seat, they would get one less list MP (so their numbers would be unaffected)

    Not really true. ACT only got the party vote total it did because it had a good chance of getting in through Epsom. If they hadn't thrown them the seat and only 2,000 people switched their vote to National instead of ACT they would have had their 18th list seat anyway.

    It's true that it's hard to pick that in advance, but given how Sainte-Laguë works they would be pretty likely to get it. More votes means more seats in general, and only in odd edge cases do you get more seats than you "should" by splitting votes across parties (and not more than one in any case). It's only if you assume that the party vote tallies are the same that National loses a seat.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 55 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to Bart Janssen,

    So he’s betting that there is no phone record, interesting gamble.

    These guys, (Key, Banks et al) are not used to having anyone question their word, their behaviour, their friendships. They believe their standing in the community exempts them from that. Their arrogance is often what let's their guard down and we see evidence of that on Key's face when the media question him. I suspect Kim is starting to see who his real friends are as is often the case when banged up. I suspect he will be most helpful to the Police, just as Owen Glenn was. If not, it brings him into disrepute and he would be a fool to allow that now that his honesty is being questioned with Banks' denials.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6320 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to Tom Semmens,

    Assuming it was a mobile call, if John Bank’s keeps his itemised phone records going back to 2010 then I’d be burning them all around now.

    And how convenient that Banks now recalls a phone call but it's for the fireworks. (just in case eh?)

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6320 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to 3410,

    No, he claims he did call to thank him… but for something else!

    Be interesting to see when the phone call was then, June would seem to be a little late for thanking someone for contributing to a New Years event...

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 5092 posts Report Reply

  • 3410, in reply to Ian Dalziel,

    Indeed it would, especially considering that they were both at the same party to watch the fireworks display!

    Auckland • Since Jan 2007 • 2618 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to 3410,

    the peril of the free lunch...

    ...they were both at the same party to watch the fireworks display!

    Interesting he was saying in January that he was finding it necessary to say he didn't know if Dotcom had donated to his mayoral campaign...

    Mr Banks said he did not know if Dotcom donated money to his mayoral campaign in 2010, but possibly it was anonymous..

    Banks really has a Memento like memory...

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 5092 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Michael Homer,

    If they hadn't thrown them the seat and only 2,000 people switched their vote to National instead of ACT they would have had their 18th list seat anyway.

    Yup, but they weren't to know that in advance. They could have needed 40,000 to switch, which was by no means guaranteed. Giving Epsom to Banks was a far safer way of getting that bonus seat. Furthermore, they could well have got Brash as well.

    You're saying if they had followed a strategy of killing ACT off, they might have got the same numbers into parliament, because ACT voters would switch to National. Maybe so. Or they might not, and National loses a free seat, and the balance of power. That's why they didn't. Quite aside from the fact that they benefit more from having ACT in power than from one more Nat.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 8659 posts Report Reply

  • 3410,

    Key on Banks: "If you're in breach of the law, you're in breach of it, but that's not the case".
    - NatRad 5:00 news.

    Auckland • Since Jan 2007 • 2618 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to BenWilson,

    Quite aside from the fact that they benefit more from having ACT in power than from one more Nat.

    Plus they thought they were all riding high for numbers giving them a vast majority. Until that fateful cuppa... hehehehehe { :)

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6320 posts Report Reply

  • Mark Graham, in reply to DeepRed,

    wow - that took me half an hour to read all the bits. I like it but not sure about the treading water reference.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 180 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 12 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.