Priviliges Committee

Sex Bomb? Surely they jest

Last week I was the pin up boy, this week it is Helen Clark the “Sex Bomb”.

The young Helen Clark was once described as “a sex bomb” in black boots, according to a new unauthorised biography of the former prime minister.

Helen Clark, by Wellington journalist Denis Welch, says trade union leader Matt McCarten’s first memory of her was from the early 80s. “She was dressed all in black and had big black boots,” McCarten said.

Fellow unionist Laila Harre, later an Alliance Party cabinet minister in Clark’s first cabinet, recalled a 1985 party where young men were “salivating over Helen Clark and her boots”.

“McCarten: `She was a sex bomb!”‘

“Harre: `She was, actually from a left-wing point of view. We don’t have very high standards!”‘

I wonder what Rene thinks about that description?

Welch says Clark holds grudges. “She has the memory of an elephant, and never forgets a name, a face, or a grievance.”

She’s “a great gossip; she loves knowing stuff about people, especially members of the National Party. It’s not that she uses it viciously, she just likes the sense of power it brings her”, writes Welch.

“Though she disapproves of sexual shenanigans, she would never do someone down on the basis of salacious gossip: she’s a very moral, conservative person, a Waikato farm girl at heart.”

No of course she wouldn’t, she got Mallard and others to do her dirty work for her, perhaps on the promise of a session with the black boots.

 

Is Helen Clark a tosser?

The Standard think that anyone who uses the term New Zealand Inc is a tosser.

Well then, that means Helen Clark must be a tosser.

Was she a tosser here?

Also, she used it again here

and here

and here

and for a real good luagh Google search site:www.labour.org.nz “New Zealand Inc”

Lots of old references, now all deleted on their new site.

Turns out that Phil Goff, Lianne Dalziel, Michael Cullen, and Harry Duynhoven are all Tossers according to The Standard.

So when ever anyone asks if Labour are a party of tossers you can categorically state that yes ineed they are and Whaleoil proved it.

 

Guilty of nothing more than being helpful to his constituents

The corruption and bribery trial of Philip Field continues. Remember this is the man that Helen Clark and Michael Cullen said was guilty of nothing more than being helpful to his constituents.

Corruption of Philip Field

A little birdy told me

A few of interesting bits of gossip have come in over the Tip Line.

Clark on the Bludge in New York

It seems that Helen Clark was on the bludge recently in New York. Turns out that despite a salary of over $500,000 USD there is no accommodation supplement and she had to find her own accomodation.

Yes it is hard to believe but this veteran trougher from the public purse, despite a lifetime of troughing and owning a multi-million dollar property portfolio herself was trying to score free accommodation in New York by requesting accommodation in the UN Ambassador’s house until she found one.

Her request was politely declined.

Pork Chop and Gilda K troughing it up at Yum Char…plus the cat fight amongst the witnesses

The other story involves one of the biggest Pigs in Auckland. Pork Chop and Gilda K were seen troughing up large, and I mean large at Grand Harbour, one of the best Yum Char’s in Auckland. The two of them looked positively miserable. I wonder who the nasty person was who sent BBQ Pork Buns, Roast Pork and BBQ Pork to the table?

Perhaps Pork Chop as seeking solace after the down-low bust-up of the relationship between the Chop’s and their star witnesses in the Saunders/Chop case. Firstly the word is that a bit too much snooping went on when the Chops were looking at one of the witnesses laptop for the emails. The other interesting thing is Mrs Chop’s lawyer seems to have ditched the case leaving Drew without representation.

Ohhh…I wonder why that happened. Perhaps it is the same old problem that Mrs Chop always has…the little issue of paying ones bill.

Shayne and Stephen up a tree….

This is really interesting considering the ongoing Employment Dispute between HoS and StePhen Cook.

StePhen Cook who has sued for unfair dismissal after apparently being accused of selling class A’s in the bogs at HOS is having a good whack at Shayne Currie. His affidavit against Shayne apparently contained sexual harassment claims (obviously not towards Pork Chop – we know Shayne is not that desperate).

Eye Spy

Is it true that Jonathan Marshall to be the new About Town guy? Could this be the end of Pork Chop, after lying about being offered the job, as Marshall is way nasty, hard working and gay so knows all the goss. He also doesn’t eat as much so will be welcome at more events than the woman with the ever expanding arse.

Hooton on Evil

Matthew Hooton writes in the NBR about the evil of Helen Clark. Why his clumns aren’t online is beyond me and the weekly traipse up to the Howick Stationers is a bore. However todays column made the fee for the whole NBR worth it.

Everyone should read at least the summary of this week’s Foreshore and Seabed report, for a timely reminder of the true nature of the regime defeated last November.

From 1999, Helen Clark set about controlling all sources of public discourse in New Zealand.

Clark ultras were progressively appointed throughout the public service, including even the upper echelons of the police, or moved into influential roles in state broadcasting.

Actors, artists and screenwriters, who normally play an important subversive role in society, were purchased with taxpayer indulgences and prime ministerial patronage.

This march through the institutions created a left-wing fog so thick that, even today, the public still perceives a mostly positive picture of Ms Clark’s nine grisly years in power.

That fog is lifting and historians will eventually assess Ms Clark to have been a political monster in the mould of Nixon or Muldoon.

Perhaps Matthew is prone to some hysterics but in the cold light of the truth that has emerged from the dark days of Helengrad we can see that there is some accuracy in his opening gambit.

From the outset, Clark’s regime had a bloodlust for the politics of personal destruction. Whether Peter Doone, Roger Kerr, Kit Richards or “hater and wreckers” Pita Sharples and Tariana Turia, anyone who opposed its agenda was viciously smeared.

Her government stole money, passed retrospective legislation to cover up its crimes, defended criminal wrongdoing by its ministers, outlawed effective criticism of the regime in election year, lied shamelessly even on trivial matters and brazenly removed basic legal rights even from its allies.

Thus, while most intelligent people didn’t care whether there was GE corn in New Zealand, the Clark Government said it did care, and insisted there wasn’t when it knew there was.

Government PR budgets were brought under the control of party activists like Clare Curran, and taxpayers’ money used for pledge cards and other propaganda as if it were party funds.

Whenever caught, Ms Clark would smear anyone from the auditor-general to the charity to which she sent a fake painting. Where necessary, she’d change the law to declare what she had done to be legal.

Again a little theatrical, yet somehow very accurate. We can see a picture of true evil starting to appear.

Against such competition, it’s difficult to identify the most evil act of the Clark years, but the Foreshore & Seabed Act probably takes the title.

This was legislation introduced to Parliament by attorney-general and Clark puppet Margaret Wilson to overturn a unanimous Court of Appeal decision in which she herself was the losing party.

The decision did not award ownership of anything to anyone, being merely jurisdictional.

Nor did it invoke potentially-contentious Treaty law, instead resting entirely on the ancient common-law doctrine of aboriginal title.

If Ms Clark and Ms Wilson disagreed with the decision, they could have appealed to the Privy Council, but they decided not to because they were then trying to abolish that right for everyone else.

Instead, immediately – just four days after the Court of Appeal decision – they announced legislation to blatantly deny a group of New Zealanders the right to explore their common-law property rights in court.

It was a despicable attack on the rule of law and due process, strongly opposed on principle by the business community and a wide cross section of the community, including me.

Inded it was a despicable act, robbing a whole section of our population from recourse before the courts purely on the basis of race. A more racist act in the history of New Zealand would be hard to find. What can Goff do to undo the damage.? All indications thus far on Goff though are that he is contuniing at least with the politics of persaonal destruction, not the least for himself by running dirty little sting and pimping operations. However Matthew Hooton disagrees.

Today, Labour still struggles with these truths, absurdly claiming its hand was forced by Bill English and Don Brash.

In fact, when Ms Clark and Ms Wilson decided to legislate, Bill English’s National Party was dying in the polls and Dr Brash was merely his disloyal finance spokesman.

The Orewa speech was more than six months away; the Iwi/Kiwi billboards two years.

Before it can be redeemed, Labour needs first to be honest about its past. It must admit that it alone was responsible for the outrage, and that it knew what it was doing was wrong, but that it did it anyway.

After the excesses of Muldoon, Jim McClay became National’s leader. Mr McClay proved to have no hope of ever becoming prime minister but he valiantly began the process of eliminating the Muldoon legacy from his party. History judges him kindly.

Like Mr McClay, Phil Goff will never be prime minister but history too will judge him kindly if he uses his time as leader to distance his party from the disgrace of the Clark years.

If Goff is Labour’s McClay then that makes it highly likely that David Shearer is Labour’s John Key.

I have to make myself more public: Phil Goff

I have to make myself more public: Phil GoffAt the end of our hour together, Phil Goff said, “Do you think you covered everything you wanted to cover?” I asked if he had covered everything he had wanted to cover. I was genuinely interested in his answer because I would have… [NZ Herald Politics]

There is a mirth inducing interview with Phil Goff in the Herald today. Michele Hewitson is known for making politicians look like plonkers and she again succeeds with Phil Goff.

One thing he is known for is giving horribly long answers to questions, even to questions that haven’t been asked. There is an old joke about him in the Radio New Zealand newsroom which goes like this: Phil Goff has never missed a deadline. “Ha, ha, I haven’t heard that one. I’ve always fronted up to media.”

Oh right, either Phil Goff has an extremely poor memory or he is a liar. Just two weeks ago he refused to front up to Close Up because he would have had to have shared the studio with me.

Phil Goff also dig himself deeper into the honey trap and shows he was complicit in its execution.

We got into a circular argument over why he called the Labour Party woman at the centre of the row “strikingly beautiful”. I want to know why on earth he said it; he can’t see what my problem is. He says it was absolutely relevant because “that was one of the things that made her attractive to Dr Worth”. It still seems to me to be a peculiar thing to say, and I say I can’t imagine Helen Clark saying it. “She might have.”

Right. So to put that in context you need to listen to this audio of an

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

on 12 June.

Phil Goff tells a different story about the first meeting of Neelam Choudary. Goff says he didn’t know that Neelam Choudary’s husband was facing fraud charges yet at this point he would have known that Neelam Choudary was a failed candidate in the Botany selection and he for sure would have known why she was a failed candidate in the Botany selection. That suggests that Phil Goff is being less than completely honest about his knowledge of the background of Neelam Choudary and of her convicted fraudster husband.

Secondly he says that he states the reason he gave the advice to Choudary to take someone with her to the first ever meeting with Richard Worth was because “if a minister wants to have a private meeting and is offering a job to somebody he knows is the opposition’s camp, I thought fairly early on that there might be an ulterior motive, I didn’t have any evidence for that, but I suggested, actually I would have suggested that she took somebody into the meeting with her, unfortunately she didn’t do that, I think that was for her own protection I made that reccommendation”.

That is a fairly long answer and as Michele Hewitson puts it, “One thing he is known for is giving horribly long answers to questions, even to questions that haven’t been asked.”

And that is precisely what Phil Goff has done to his detriment. He inadvertantly tells us that a) he knew about this sting “fairly early on”, b) He talks about a job offer when the alleged affidavit tells us that the job offer was made at this meeting and not before, which leaves c) that knowing Richard Worth’s penchant for sleeping with asian ladies he set up this honey trap.

Phil Goff has lied to the media about his and his offices involvement with Neelam choudary, he has lied to the public. Not one of his stories has ever added up with any one of his previous stories.

I am not convinced at all that any such job offer was necessarily made or if it was that this was the main reason for the meeting. Dr Worth had only just been appointed Minister of Internal Affairs on 19 November and this meeting took place on 26 November. He would probably not even have known at that time what positions were available on the Lotteries Board or Ethnic Affairs Board. Such offers would only have been exploratory anyway as the Minister himself cannot act alone on such matters.

JOIN THE DOTS…Kumar Choudary stayed in the car park because it would not be a good look to have a person who is a Labour Party activist and Goff’s friend (note he didn’t deny that she was his friend) whose husband faced criminal fraud charges; having a meeting in a public place with a Minister to seek advice.

it is highly likely that Phil Goff as Neelam Choudary’s friend knew about the charges Kumar faced and it is very probable that Neelam was seeking advice from Dr Worth on matters relating to her husband (Internal Affairs deals with passports, permits etc). Kumar Choudary could have faced deportation once convicted and this would have weighed heavily on his wife’s mind. Neelam Choudary sought Goff’s advice as to who she should seek help from re: her husband. Phil Goff knew that Dr Worth had influence and could be persuaded if the woman applicant – shall we say – showed a bit of leg and cleavage!

Clearly Phil Goff pimped out Neelam Choudary and then used her to score political points. Phil Goff needs to come clean about the despicable way in which he used a woman to get at a minister, then kept quiet about it until it suited his political purposes and then leaked the details to the media so it would appear that John Key made it public.

So far Richard Worth is guilty of nothing more than cheating on his wife and God knows there isn’t a politician in the world that hasn’t done that. Phil Goff has done much worse, he has dragged the Labour Party and politics in general to a new low. We all thought that we couldn’t go lower in standards than that which Helen Clark set but Phil Goff’s standards of behaviour are positively subterranean.

Honeygate – Exposing the lies of the Pimp

Now that the Mt Albert by-election has finished we can concentrate on the mendacity of Phil Goff and the lies he has told in peddling his story to the media and his role in pimping out Mrs Choudary.

We all know now that Phil Goff was supposed to have acted as some sort of sexual harrassment counsellor for Neelam Choudary. Neelam Choudary herself was protrayed as an innocent victim when she was far from that all along. There is now archive footage of Neelam Choudary in train with Helen Clark on the election trail last year. You simply don’t get to be in the entourage of any campaigning leader let alone the Prime Minister unless you are considered a top activist.

More information is continually coming to light about this woman as well, through the tipline. I thank those who are doing their duty in exposing the lies of Phil Goff.

Mr Goff has also gone out of his way to describe Mrs Choudary as some sort of demure, innocent who has been affronted by Richard Worth’s predatory actions. Phil Goff later went on to describe her as “strikingly attractive” and thus directly leading me to discover her identity. However matters of public record record a different Mrs Choudary than the one described by Phil Goff.

On Koro Tawa’s website for his campaign in Botany she is described as;

Neelam ChoudaryIt is an enormous strength to the campaign to be joined with two significant identities and representatives of the community, each of whom will make a valuable contribution in engaging with the constituents of Botany……

……Neelam Choudary has established an enormously strong network in the Indian community, and has consulted widely accross many of  India’s top business and political leaders.

Hardly the description of some wilting violet under pressure from a Government Minister to put out for a job. We also know too that she stood in the selection for Botany for Labour. It is inconceivable that Phil Goff hardly knew this woman. That is her pictured above with List MP Raymond Huo.

On Thursday night Mr Goff said he had met Kumar Choudary only once. I wonder if Mr Goff woud like to tell us where that was? My information suggests that this is also a lie by Mr Goff. So far every piece of information I have published on this story has been highly accurate. Would Mr Goff like clarify?

He would not say whether he knew he had been found guilty of immigration fraud, but said that did not affect the credibility of the complainant.

Further, yesterday on Radio Live a caller directly put the question to Mr Goff about his knowledge of Mrs Choudary and her fraudster husband. That caller has sent me an email about the converstation;

Today on Radio Live Phil Goff told me he did NOT know anything about the charges Neelam Choudary’s husband Kumar Choudary – faced at the time he {Goff} advised her she should take a support person along to her first meeting with Dr Richard Worth on 26 November 2008.

And yet at that time he knew that Neelan Choudary had missed out on the Labour Party nomination for the seat of Botany – due in large part to the fact that serious charges involving immigration scams had been laid against her husband – and she was implicated in them (see NZ Herald story 8/12/08). Labour Party hierarchy knew about this shocking scam. Kumar was facing a looming case in the Auckland District Court the week after he accompanied his wife to meet Dr Worth. In the end he stayed in the car in the car park.

So we now have the situation where almost every thing that Phil Goff has told us, save the identity of the woman has been demonstrably false, now we are suposed to believe on 26 November – the time of the meeting – that Neelan’s close confident [pimp] Phil Goff knew nothing about the criminal charges her husband faced.

 

A referee I'd rather not have

Samuels sticks up for besmirched former foeFormer Labour Party minister Dover Samuels has stuck up for Richard Worth, saying he had advised him to “hold his head high and walk back into that Parliament”. Mr Samuels was the first minister disciplined under Helen Clark’s… [NZ Herald Politics]

Dover Samuels has stuck up for Richard Worth, now there is a reccommendation I’d rather not have. Being supported by another doddery old rooter with a weak bladder!

Labour's Honey trap revealed

Labour has been running a honey trap against Richard Worth. That much has become apparent as time has moved on with Phil Goff running massive interference and playing the long game.

Today Brian Rudman all but outed the alleged victim. I say alleged because as you are about to find out this woman is hardly the kind to hide her light under a bushel.

Let’s look at what we have been able to garner so far.

  1. She is strikingly attractive. Phil Goff’s description.
  2. Indian
  3. Labour Party member (although this is an exceedingly conservative description)
  4. Tried to gain selection for Labour in an Auckland seat.
  5. Received more than 100 pieces of communication (yet to be proffered in evidence)she stood for candidacy in Botany (matches Rudman’s description), Indian, strikingly attractive as well

Let’s examine those 5 known points, in no particular order. The 100 texts/messages…WTF…she must have been replying…..indeed from the Herald article this morning it is clear that Richard Worth was replying to some texts in return. Until those messages are furnished then this increasingly looks like a honey trap.

The next things to look at are the strikingly attractive, Indian, Labour party member and standing for selection but missing out in 2008.

Strikingly AtractiveThere is only one person who fits that profile. That is party activist and wannabe candidate Neelam Choudary. She stood for selection in Botany in 2008 after I harpooned Brenden Sheehan out of the candidacy. She has numerous photos of her in attendence with Helen Clark, Phil Goff, Rajen Prasad and other MP’s as well I have been sent a photo of her attending a Labour Party organised protest march on the supercity. She is also friends with Jordan Carter and Carmel Sepuloni.

Phil Goff needs to come clean now about the motivation of this woman sending and receiving 100 of texts/messages over a period of months, all the while Phil Goff also knew about it and kept it quiet.  Remember we have 60 txts and 40 phone conversations. noone has 40 phone conversations if they think they are lewd and offensive. Notwithstanding the fact that Richard Worth is a sleaze and a sex pest and should be sacked, we now know that this woman is no ordinary Labour Party member, she is in fact an active and known potential candidate.

It now appears that Labour have run a deliberate and calculated honey trap to catch Richard Worth out. Richard Worth also fit the profile as the intended target because he is a serial rooter. It was simply a matter of time before something else came out and it looks like Labour held onto this until something else related about Richard Worth broke into the news. That way they could insert their honey trap with much more credibility.

Sure Worth is a plonker but that is why Labour ran this sting, they knew they could get him. They just didn’t count on him being dumber than a sack of hammers but smart enough to make sure the texts sounded innocuous. If Phil Goff had anthing salacious he would have used it already not merely released invitations to go swiming and travel to Goa.

Whilst the accusations from the so far un-named Korean woman are undergoing Police investigation we will have to reserve judgment there, but as it stands, the Phil Goff orchestrated honey trap can now be called as a Labour sting.

Finally on the note of Phil Goff’s description, I’ve seen worse, but “strikingly beautiful”?

Still, compared to Clark, Tizard or Kate Sutton ….

Is it true?

Is it true;

That Helen Clark threatened a political repeater with outing his secret love child to his partner if coverage didn’t improve?

That Winston Raymond Peters, 64, unemployed of no fixed abode is considering standing for the Auckland Mayoralty?

That Winston Raymond Peters, 64, unemployed of no fixed abode likes living close to drug dealers?

That a self styled tough guy MP attended a S&M party in Turangi dressed as a gimp?

That Richard “Watergate” Northey is keeping a low profile just in case some affidavits get leaked?

That every time Richard “Watergate” Northey walks into a room with other councillors they all cover up their papers?