Posts by FletcherB
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Who are the front runners in the race besides these two lunatics?
So far, only two others have even put their name forward...
Neither of which could be considered front-runners(so far)
Colin Craig - unknown self-made multi millionaire. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10655119
Simon Prast- semi-famous actor/director/producer and arts administrator
UPDATE ... those two announced in the last week, I forgot earlier announcements of Ewen Gilmour (a former Waitakere councillor, more famous as a comedian, but I think he's a serious not 'joke' nominee?) and Penny Bright a long time campaigner on water issuesNone of these four currently have any poll-able level of support...(I think?)
-
Russel Norman's behaved like a child since he roughed up (yes, if you watch the television footage closely, it's his hands shoving people aside to retrieve the Tibetan flag) security personnel outside Parliament.
OH MY FREAKIN' LORD...
Can she not see the OBVIOUS point ?
Note her own word RETRIEVE... why on earth would he have to retrIeve something already in his possession? (watch the footage as she helpfully suggests... it started off in Norman's possesion)
Perhaps, he just dropped it, and they helpfully picked it up before he assaulted them?
Or is Ms Coddington seriously suggesting police need to investigate little old ladies for potentially assaulting bag snatchers?
-
the direct mail bomb from the Banks campaign that went straight into my rubbish bin last week.
I was going to bin it too.... but then I realized I could waste 50c of his budget by using the reply paid envelope to inform him I wouldnt make a donation or vote for him, but thanks for asking.
Yes, it's petty... but I felt good :)
-
(ii) The improper use of any public financial resource.
Thankyou Graeme... I think that trumps my point...
Money wasnt spent but a financial resource was used...
-
It seems quibbling in the face of precise rules and reiterated advice that it was not OK, however.
I agree that they certainly seem to have had very clear rules..... and it also seems that at least some of them were under an understanding that breaking those rules was actually normal and acceptable as long as it was refunded..
But Graeme was saying, regardless of those rules, its illegal to spend un-appropriated public funds.
I was questioning (only half-heartedly- I wouldn't want to put my neck on it) if un-appropriated funds had indeed been spent, because if they haven't, the point is moot.
I suspect I'm wrong... I'm trying to prompt clarification...
-
Where is the authorisation of spending on golf clubs?
Was there any spending on golf-clubs? By the public I mean....
A credit card got used..... the credit card companies money goes into vendors account.
If the politician puts funds into the account before its due.... did any public money get spent?
-
Lost luggage does require replacing, so undies and suits are also legit.
Of course...
But the version I've heard (and I cant attest to the accuracy) is that it happened to the same minister three times in one year, whilst not happening to any others...
Sure, sometimes you can just have really bad luck.... or, you could really be rorting the system?
Unlike much of the other petty stuff... it probably deserves a little further investigation...
-
uh, surely the bill would've been paid in its entirety before the due date, and then issues of reimbursement resolved at a later date? I mean, do you really think the responsible official would've looked through the bill, said "This, this, this, clearly OK, we'll pay them, that and that, a bit sus, need querying, and that is obviously outside the rules and we're not going to pay it."?
No, no, thats not what I was thinking at all...
If the officials have to ask the card-holder, its already too late.... the key word was "volunteer"
I was thinking the Minister might, you know, present the receipt from the sale with a "this one is mine, heres the cheque" note as soon as they get back to the office.... before the credit card bill has arrived for payment and examination....
Minister "Heres the $450 hotel bill.... line item 5 and 7 are my personal expenses and heres a cheque for $37.50."
That doesnt bother me at all (despite it being against the rules).
Official "Hey, whats this $37.50?" too late- you're a theif
-
What I want to know hasn't really been reported (or not clearly)...
WHEN was this personal expenditure paid back?
While I appreciate the rules say "no personal expenditure at all"... I can see the practicality of paying with one card and sorting it out later (just like happens with many company credit cards).
If the person volunteers that it's personal expenditure themselves, and pays up before the interest-free period has expired... I'm not so fussed.They havent tried to get the tax-payer to pay for it... they've just used a card to make a transaction.
If however, they have to be chased and questioned, and have clearly expected us taxpayers to cover something, and then only begrudgingly pay after parliamentary services have harassed them with rude letters for three months... yeah, thats worth the public being upset.
(update since reading Graeme Edgelers post above)- Yeah I get the within the rules/against the rules thing.... but I guess I'm going to the "intent".... I'm more upset if they intended to get away with something... rather than if they were just using the card for convenience and were never intending for taxpayers to be coughing up....
And I can also see that determining intent is fraught with problems and following the rules to the letter is probably a better bet.
-
Very likely shot on colour film, but broadcast at the time, of course, in black and white. Or a TVNZ cock-up :)
I'm going for the latter because...
1) I've also seen B&W Ches-n-Dale adds on history of NZ TV/Cartooning/art programs within the last year or so.
2) I'm 80% certain I actually saw the add shown last night on TV when it was current.... and I only arrived in NZ in 1981.Neither is conclusive, I'll grant you...