Liar

Winston Peters, known liar, is threatening to sue David Farrar:

Political comeback king Winston Peters is threatening to take legal action against a right wing blogger, just hours after finding out he’s coming back to parliament.

In the final days of the election campaign blogger David Farrar alleged the New Zealand First leader’s candidacy was illegal.

Mr Peters has vehemently denied that.

In the final days of the election campaign blogger David Farrar alleged the New Zealand First leader’s candidacy was illegal because he hadn’t gone through the correct registration process.

Speaking to podcast The Slightly Correct Political Show Mr Peters says he won’t stand for such outrageous actions and hinted he’ll take legal action against Mr Farrar.

I’m disappointed that Winston is suing Farrar before me. Especially after I had words with him in the studio this morning at Tv3. I’ve called him a liar, corrupt and a thief….no matter what I do I can’t get him to sue me, so kudos to Farrar for getting a reaction. Of course Winston lies at the every opportunity so this is probably just another big bluff full of bluster and bullshit.

Winston Peters threatens David Farrar by whaleoil

Last night Phil Goff lied about Police recruitment.

Note that in the debate clip – he said ALL recruiting cancelled –  that is a total lie… and he now won’t admit he got it wrong.  To make it worse he gets way too angry when he is challenged on it – as demonstrated in the Plunket interview.  This is a desperate man who is not handling the pressure well.

The Police Commissioner, the Police Minister and the Police Association all contradict Phil Goff and now he is dying in a ditch over his lie.

Sean Plunket tore Phil Goff apart and challenged him to show us his proof of his allegations. Phil cut and run in interview when the questioning got too tough.

Sean Plunket flays Phil Goff over his Police lies by whaleoil

Again you have to wonder why Phil Goff even did this on the penultimate day of the campaign, a day when he should be skewering the government on Asset Sales. Instead he gets fed a line that blows up in his face and now he is spending the day reacting in the much the same way he did when he lied about the SIS briefing.

I have some questions for Winston Peters that he needs to answer:

1. Was it in 2005?
2. How much?
3. Why are there no donations recorded for 2005 from Tobacco companies?
4. Why does the Electoral Commission not show a single donation to NZ First between 1996-2005 from a Tobacco company?
5. Why does the Electoral Commission not show a single donation to NZ First from a tobacco company for any year since 2005?
6. If you declared it, then where is it?
7. Why do you tell so many lies?

Winston Raymond Peters, 65, pensioner of St Marys Bay was on the NZ Herald Live Chat and as is usual from him he lied through his teeth:

This is an outright lie from the get go.

Refunding Parliamentary Services for illegal spending isn’t a gift. National paid back its GST oversight with a donation of paid airtime for community groups. Those community groups actually got the benefit of National’s refund. In stark contrast the NBR shows that Winston’s “gift” was nothing more than a sham. Worse he manipulated a victim of crime for his own political purposes.

Winston Peters has much to answer for. The problem is the man can’t tell the truth. When he says anything yo simply can’t trust him.

Phil Goff has accused John Key of telling lies, he has refused to retract. In Phil Goff’s world if you say one thing in the past and then change your mind or do something different no matter the circumstances then you are telling lies.

Well since Phil Goff decided to ignore his own press about focussing on policy and not personality let’s continue the examination of Phil Goff’s lies using his own definition.

Phil Goff on Capital Gains Tax:

In September 2009 Phil Goff said that Capital Gains Tax was not an immediate priority. It didn’t appeal to Labour.

Now just two years later Capital Gains Tax is heroically going to fund their more than $17 billion of extra spending.

Using Phil Goff’s definition of lying, of saying one thing in the past and doing another thing in the future, despite changes in the economy, or global situation, then clearly Phil Goff is a liar.

Phil Goff stated last night that he has never lied. Never mind his lies over the SIS briefing, he laid out plenty last night in the debate.

The most egregious lie though was when he stated that Labour would never have mined in a National Park, except they had:

On 12 March 2004, Minister of Conservation Chris Carter approved the access arrangement for Pike River Coal Ltd. The arrangement included four 1.5-metre (4.9 ft)-wide emergency escape shafts within the boundaries of Paparoa National Park and a requirement for Pike River Coal Ltd to spend NZ$70,000 annually on conservation projects. Carter stated that the “safeguards and compensation” outweighed the inconsistencies with objectives of the Conservation Act 1987 and the relevant management plans.

I’m glad Phil Goff has decided to focus on lies, we can now focus on 27 years of his lies.

David Parker has put a weaselly explanation on Kiwiblog for his lies:

Garth McVicar has today (25 October) said that the Sensible Sentencing Trust has not made donations of money to any political party, including Act. It appears from his statement that the only gift the Trust itself made to Act was David Garrett. What donations, if any, came from members of the so-called Sensible Sentencing Trust to Mr Garrett or Act  I do not know.

Those are just weasel words, David Parker. That isn’t an unreserved apology and retraction. It is rude, condescending and still leaves his lies hanging out there.

Not good enough. I hope Garth McVicar sues his weaselly arse off.

Trevor Mallard is focussing on the things that matter to Kiwi voters…like how much politicians get paid. In his opinion it isn’t enough.

Nice to see him continuing his usual form of telling big fat lies. He suggests that he took a pay cut to become an MP, considering he was a school teacher before entering parliament this is hardly likely to be true.

Why does Trevor Mallard, when given a choice between telling the truth or telling a lie always pick telling a lie?

It looks like she is conning more people, this time in funding her alleged mountaineering efforts.

Reg­u­lar read­ers will know all about Pearl Going, aka Sian Pearl Going, aka Sia-Pearl Going. Just to recap here is a list her claimed fame:

• Speaks Ara­bic, French and Span­ish but can barely type in English
• Has a BSc from Otago. (They have no record)
• she also says she has no degree
• Says she went to Senior Col­lege (They have no record)
• Says she went to Oxford Uni­ver­sity in 2006 where she stud­ied Human Sci­ences, Pol­i­tics and Inter­na­tional Rela­tions at New Col­lege. She says she stud­ied med­i­cine for two and a half years at Oxford. (I have a let­ter from Oxford say­ing she never, ever enrolled)
• also AUT in 2002 where she stud­ied Human Sciences
• also Can­ter­bury in 2005 where she stud­ied inter­na­tional studies
• she says she has a pilot’s licence but won’t say where from.
• Says she last flew up north but will give no details.
• Says her “Clean” jeans are made in NZ She wont say where. She says they are sold at a store in LA She wont say where. She also says they are sold a “best seller” in Barneys
• She says she sourced the red silk for Natalie Portman’s dress for Zac Posen,
• She says she was engaged to  Leon Roth­schild and that he slashed his wrists at the end of last year when she broke off with him.
• She says she is a friend of NY socialite Tins­ley Mortimer.
• Says she is mates with Marc Jacobs and was his fab­ric buyer and that she was Zac Posen’s muse.
• When asked if the Tins­ley Mor­timer quote on her Face­book was about her and she went all coy and smiled.
• She says she was in Brazil doing char­ity work and saved lives in a plane crash which she was in.
• She has sib­lings by dif­fer­ent fathers. The sib­lings are part maori
• She says 2 weeks before her 16^th birth­day she was drugged and raped by [removed by request of per­son con­cern] who abused her for six hours and then left her body in a dump­ster. [per­son’ name deleted as per request] is a pilot now liv­ing in the UK. I am told he is a very very decent and good young guy.
• She says she has breast cancer
• She says her mother has can­cer of the colon and is going into hospital.
• She says her father is an alco­holic because of what hap­pened to “his little girl”.
• She says she sup­ports orphan­ages in Burma, Fiji and Sierra Leone but will give no details. She pic­tures of her­self with Thai kids.
• She says she worked for Fair­Trade and Amnesty.
• She says she has spent 71 days in NZ in 2008 and maybe 6 months in NY in 2007 but she is in and out a lot so no specifics.
• The Clean Green Air com­pany doesn’t google.
• She did used to work for Pow­er­call as a telemarketer
• Her mum’s name is Max­ine 021 18X XXXX. She is a mas­sage ther­a­pist and cleaner
• She applied for a job at Fair­Trade with a steth­escope hang­ing out of her bag and wear­ing scrubs. and she got job with forged refs from Oxford that said she was the bright­est stu­dent they had seen.
• Says she is  23 and 28
• Says she lives off a Trust Fund
• Says she dated Peter Hujlich but threw a glass of wine on him when he called Peter Stew­art a pae­dophile. (He denies even know­ing Peter Stew­art, he also denies ever hav­ing a rela­tion­ship with the mad bitch)
• Has a hand­bag label using pleather — which is sup­pos­edly eco-friendly leather but which is actu­ally plastic
• Was a pilot in Brazil, saved every­one in a crash with her med­ical degree
• Grew up on a farm in South­land next to the Stew­arts, Pieter is her mum’s best friend also that she grew up in Tutakaka in a hippy family
• Worked for the UN for years
• Has been offered a job by Kate Sylvester after know­ing her ten minutes
• Been on a yacht with Richard Bran­son, who is her “friend” watch­ing the moon rise

From the Northern Advocate article we have yet another thing to add to the list of amazing things she has done:

One of her reasons for taking on the challenge was to prove herself after a brain injury she suffered in a car crash in Dubai in 2006.

The injury took much of her memory and put a stop to her studies. When she returned to Whangarei after the accident she could no longer find her way around or remember people she grew up with.

Maybe that explains the remarkable memory recovery she constantly spouts as above. But it is highly unlikely that the head injury even exists. I have seen fabricated medical evidence of this and if she keeps on saying it I will publish it all. But you can tell this is all a fabrication when you read banal tosh like this:

It was also the realisation of a childhood dream. Reconstructing her memories with the help of family members, she learned she had nagged her father to take her to a real mountain, Ruapehu, when she was 4 years old. At the age of 7 she wrote in a diary that her goal was to “climb to the top of the world”.

“To discover a dream again, when you’re old enough to do something about it, is a gift,” Ms Going said.

Wow, another thing we can add to the list. Wrote in diary at age 7!

Basically Pearl Going is a lying little minx. It looks like she has conned the Northern Advocate and Sony, Adidas, Scarpa, Marmot, Discovery Channel (yes she has their logo in her promotion photos) with her latest escapade. If I were them I’d be very concerned about being associated with a fraud and a cheat like Pearl Going.

Finally the only evidence she has allegedly climbed this mountain is a photo of someone with goggle and a hood on at the top of a mountain.

Is this really Pearl Going?

Mountain climbers I know tell me that when you “summit” you always throw back the hood and show your face so there is evidence that you did do it. Not so for Pearl Going. Her guide however shows his face in an unpublished photo. There are a few more from her Facebook page, but not an awful lot from an expediction of this size.

UPDATE: Pearl has a blog site

Phil Goff has continued to lie about the SIS briefing he said he didn’t have that documents prove that he did.

Mr Goff has said the release was politically motivated and it was strange that the blogger got the documents before media which had also asked for them.

“I think the last thing you do is politicise (information releases) as the Beehive did over the incident last week.”

He suggested Slater was directed on what to ask.

“I am sure that Warren Tucker didn’t brief Cameron Slater on what he might ask for under the Official Information Act.”

Quite right, Warren Tucker didn’t brief me, but he did brief Phil Goff. Has Phil Goff thought, for just a moment, that the reason I got the documents first is because I asked for them first? Has Phil Goff thought, for just a moment, that I was treated worse by the SIS and waited longer than media outlets for their requests to be met in this instance? I asked on the 26 July and received the documents on the 4th of August. When did Fairfax put in their request? They got their request met the exact same day as me, did they get preferential treatment?

The fact that he sees conspiracies everywhere tells us more about how the Labour party used to run things than anything else.

Funnier still is Phil Goff trying to say that his leak of confidential documents is different from my OIA request.

Mr Goff today disagreed that was an example of similar politically motivated release of information.

“It wasn’t intelligence information, it was (exposing) a blatant example of hypocrisy where politicians were saying one thing to you in the media and to the public and saying the absolute opposite when they thought they weren’t being recorded.”

In that respect, and only slightly, is he right. He leaked the documents, I put in an OIA. He also lied about those documents he leaked and Wikileaks proved he lied about it. However it doesn’t stop Phil Goff from continuing the falsehood that Don Brash said something that was only ever a figment of Phil Goff’s imagination.

Phil Goff has a proven history of leaking, he has a proven history of lying and he just keeps on keeping the story alive. Phil Goff needs to accept he forgot about teh briefing, got it wrong, and was wrong to attack a senior civil servant. There was a point where I could accept that Phil Goff just forgot. That point passed when he insisted that he and he alone has things right.

But pause for a moment and think about what Phil Goff is suggesting. If he is right and he was never shown anything, or even briefed. remember his first contention was that he was never briefed, then he was briefed just a little bit. But think, about what Phil Goff is really suggesting.

He is suggesting that Warren Tucker has falsified documents, made up minutes for briefings that never occurred and lied about it all. That really is too unbelievable. The alternate is Phil Goff simply forgot about it, tried to make political capital, got sprung and then made some stuff up to cover for his faulty memory.

What is more believable? That the head of the SIS falsified documents and lied about meetings, or that Phil Goff forgot.