It is Winston who is the "lying wanker"

More undeclared donations have surfaced as the political death of Winston Raymond Peters by a thousand cuts continues with Phil Kitchin delivering another cut.

Though not fatal the cuts received thus far are draining the life blood from the carcass of Winston First.

Today’s installment is a $20,000 deposit to the party’s bank account that does not appear on its register of declared donations.

The Dominion Post has obtained a deposit slip showing $19,998 was deposited in one or more cheques into the party’s coffers in December 1999.

Phil Kitchin has also released the transcript a very short phone conversation with Winston Raymond Peters where Winston says “Phil, I told you I’m not talking to a lying wanker like you. See you.” before hanging up.

Unfortunately for Winston we all know who the “lying wanker” is and it isn’t Phil Kitchin. One wonders how long Clark can sustain Winston’s bullshit?

 

  • Glutaemus Maximus

    Pretentious Moi?

    Sanctimonious Moi?

    Hypocritical Moi?

    Lying Tosspot Wanker Moi?

    Apologies to Fawlty Towers, AKA Flowery Twats!

  • Lindsay

    Clark needs him for a confidence vote in Parliament which I think is next week. If she still wants to stand by him after that I would be astonished. Though Helen has lost her political mojo now so anything is possible.

    The way Winston is dealing with the media currently I have the suspicion he’s been studying Sir Humphrey Appleby in Yes Minister too much. He’s now in a high stakes game of poker and he’s trying to bluff with a hand that hasn’t even got a pair of deuces.

    Trouble is there is a small group of voters that will always vote for this tosser no matter what he does.

  • zork

    Hopefully this straw that breaks the camels back, that amount too shows some was trying break the rules as well.

    Winston has been caught with little brown fingers in the till.

  • Stroke That Ego

    Clark is across the whole winston debacle.

    Peters would have admitted to Clark his indescretions during the ‘cordial’ meeting. They are as thick as thieves…

    Its not a case of Clark withholding out on taking investigative or any other action.

    It’s more a case of her now implicating herself as and becoming an accomplice to crime…(harbouring the knowledge that she has a crook in the ranks).

    In essense she’s a crook too (which we’ve always known).

    The point of her action is simple. Its a combined tactic of buying time to trying and work out how they both can mutually scquirm and crawl out of this one.

    Unfortunately, the avenues for corruption are closing rapidly….every dog has it’s day.

  • Glutaemus Maximus

    Donations or bribes?

    Is there an actual difference?

    Scampigate.

    I have always known if we have been overcharged for a meal, especially with a computerised system.

    However to be fair, we were never totally pissed when we left the building1

  • william

    “Peters would have admitted to Clark his indescretions during the ‘cordial’ meeting. They are as thick as thieves”

    well, if thick as thieves means they equally would cut each others throats if they thought they could get away with it then I think you are correct…. otherwise the way I see it they are simply co-dependents.

    Winston doesn’t like Helen … why would he as she isn’t someone he could ever charm. But he is able to use her to get the baubles of office he denies wanting. Equally, she needs his vote

    They recognise each others inflated egoes…. but only for their own purposes.

    With regard to this whole shambles…. it is not about whether someone has broken a law or not… it might well be that technically it meets all legal requirements … it is about whether Winston’s hypocrisy has been brought to light … and I believe it is shining as brightly as the former halo that some of his subjects people saw (actually, it was just a reflection of their grey hair in Winston’s shiny face but there was no telling them that)