Scott Yorke calls out the liberal types on the John Banks affair:
When police concluded that the “teapot tapes” cameraman Bradley Ambrose probably committed an offence, but decided not to prosecute because they were not satisfied that they could make out all the elements of the offence to the required criminal standard, there was an outcry among liberal-minded folk because the police appeared to be saying that someone was guilty even though police just couldn’t prove it. We were reminded by liberal types that the police don’t determine someone’s guilt because, in a free and democratic society subject to the rule of law, determining guilt is the domain of the courts.
But now we have what appears to be a collective amnesia, because we happen to dislike the person at the end of the police’s attentions. I don’t like John Banks, and I think it’s reasonable to conclude from his public statements that he is a liar and lacks any sort of moral compass. It is also reasonable to conclude that a person like John Banks is utterly unfit to be a minister, or even an MP. But he has not committed any offence, has not been charged with any offence, and has not “got off on a technicality”.
Of course Labour has just opened themselves up for skewering on a number of recent cases, with their behaviour. A re-visit of the Darren Hughes affair is the most salient, but so to the ongoing investigations into their cash for citizenship scandal involving Shane Jones and Bill Liu.
The Bill Liu affair is the one though most close in substance to the allegations that Labour are making and in their case the clear cash for¬†citizenship¬†favours are much, much more smelly than cash for nothing which is what Kim Dot-con got for his donation.
All this is just petty revenge for not getting a soft¬†mattress¬†in the pokie when he demanded one. Kim Dot-con thought, like Bill Liu that he had bought favours from a politician. Unfortunately for him John Banks is not a member of the Labour party.
Now with him turning up at¬†parliament¬†he is just like Michelle Boag and just as¬†irrelevant and without the Versace suits.