The Shield of Sanctimony will not Protect the Greens, Ctd

Russel Norman is pleading ignorance of the machinations of his EA. Despite the evidence that this was being planned several months ago.

I wonder though if he isn’t being just a wee bit too sanctimonious in his grovelling.

The stickers used has slogans like “Drill It!”, “Mine it!”, Sell it!”.

Eeerily similar to what Meteria Turei tweeted last week:

[blackbirdpie id=”134151253939851264″]

Russel Norman is using plausible deniability in his excuse making but I’m not sure I believe him.

The Greens got upset in 2005 when the Exclusive Brethren organised and distributed pamphlets. They authorised their pamphlets though. The Greens activists did no such thing. Back in 2005 Don Brash was asked if he knew anything about the campaign, he denied knowing anything.

Has Russel Norman had his Don Brash moment? Is it really believable that he didn’t know anything about this campaign when his executive assistant was front and centre involved in organising this attack on national’s billboards? There were more than 50 activists involved in this. It was on a scale far larger than the Brethren and the 6 or so men involved in that. It isn’t conceivable that senior Greens didn’t know about his.

I think there are many more questions to be answered by the Green party.

I can’t wait until someone tracks down the printer of the stickers and pulls the invoice.


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Nicky Hager will be sharpening his pencil as we speak; there’s a book to be had here…

  • Bob

    Any way of finding out who the quotes were made out to as well?

  • There does seem to be a huge difference in how Russel dealt with the billboard revelation and how Key dealt with his Standard and Poors debacle. The Greens immediately named those involved and took responsibility for the situation even though they were not directly involved. Key on the other hand refused to reveal his source and attempted to defend the indefensible. I guess people will choose the style of leadership they want but it is clear to me what I would prefer. People make mistakes but honesty and transparency goes a long way!

    • a. assuming they were not involved and b. Russel is going to be the leader of whatnow?

    • Kimbo

       Yep, there is a difference. What Norman’s EA’s partner did was both illegal, and a direct threat to democracy. What Key did was keep annonymous a source who was engaging in neither of those activities. In fact, anonymous sources are often necessary to protect democracy. And since when was what Key’s source said indefensible? Of course S&P have to directly deny it, because they have to be seen to be poltically neutral. However, if we did get a Lobour-Green government, their additional spending would most-likely result in a credit downgrade. Dave kennedy, keep trying the deflection and damage control. It shows exactly how shabby your party is, and the true indicator of how you are prepared to take “responsibility”. Crocodile tears.

      • Catweasel321

        No wonder
        S&P are being a bit Moody about it as the credit rating was downgraded from
        AA+ to AA by agencies Fitch and Standard and Poor’s on September 30.

        ‘source’ is not anonymous. I can reveal it here. It was ….himself.

        He told
        porkies to Parliament which is also ‘illegal’ (I only use this word as it seems
        so favoured in the whale comments) and when he got called on it pleaded the

        motivation was to distract from the embarrassment at already being downgrade by two agencies. Two out of three isn’t a good look when trying to talk up your fiscal credentials..

        So, seeming
        as the prevailing belief of most Whale commentators is in convoluted and
        conspiratorial associations that compels them to instantly conclude that anyone
        who speaks unfavourably about, or shows up National or our dear leader is a
        closet Green or Labourite, doesn’t that mean Whale should be scouring the
        internet to find the secret agenda they share?

        • Kimbo

          “John’s ‘source’ is not anonymous. I can reveal it here. It was ….himself. He told porkies to Parliament which is also ‘illegal’…”.

          OK. Put us all out of our misery, reveal your proof, pass it on to Phil Goff, who will then, no doubt report the matter to the Speaker, and Key will be forced to resign, as happened to Colin Moyle.

          No? Then f*&% off, troll!

    • jabba

      I assume you don’t think S&P would downgrade us again if we had a Labour/Green/Winny1st/Mana Govt then??  of course they would, Keys mate was told but as S&P denied saying it, Key is protecting the people involved .. great stuff from an honest PM

    • Thorn

      You Greens never take accountability for your crimes against humanity, just like the millions of African lives destroyed by malaria and ‘protection’ of wetlands – more than both Pres. Bush’ & Saddam combined.

  • Figaro

    I bet Phil Goof cant believe his luck, this may return some of the lost labour votes who jumped from one sinking ship only to find tha thet green ship is heading for the iceberg as well !  No chnace of Russell Norman resigning, so who will benefit ? Winston Peters as a credible opposition ? Can wait to see the 6pm headlines !

  • greenmuppet

    “Russel Norman is pleading ignorance”. – This is seriously good! Ignorant until proven guilty. Might as well be “Give back my innocence”. Haven’t had such a good laugh for a while :)

  • Agent BallSack

    The most amusing thing about this is, not even 2 weeks ago we were sitting around this very blog commenting on the lack on loonyness from the Greens. Guess we were all proven right to be suspicious of the silence surrounding them.

  • Paulus

    Norman is either a Liar or Incompetant. If the latter he should give his PA the boot for not keeping him advised of such things. That is a PA’s job

    • Figaro

      I dont think we need to be picky – he is both as far as I can tell !

  • Markm

    What has Russel Norman pleading ignorance got to do with wether he had any knowledge of this organized criminal activity

  • Andy

    What’s with the Greens and their bird-munching eco prayer-wheels? It’s impossible to visit a blog or website without one of these banner ads in your face.

  • Anonymous

    Is there an OIA opportunity to the Green Party or to Parliamentary Services to see who actually paid for the print run?

  • If it were a covert Green operation and they were trying to maintain plausible deniability then having the partner of Russel Norman’s EA, himself a well-known Green supporter, head the thing up was an unbelievable oversight.

  • Dutyfree

    It is standard Greenpeace practise.  Do the posters, organise the protest etc from Greenpeace HQ, but then deny you were involved because the people that did it were not “members”, but show “solidarity” for your comrades. 

  • Agent BallSack

    Therein lies the biggest issue with the Greens. They are happy to commit certain crimes against the state and government because its a badge of rite to be done for trespassing, criminal nuisance etc to those folk. Just think Waihopai and the subsequent defence and you have the Green mentality in a nutshell.

  • greenmuppet

    On the subject of the style similarities: