Bugger

Country’s Buggered

I was sent this via the tipline.

It is hilarious.

It is a satirical look at enduring attitudes towards gays, immigrants, liberals, feminists and environmentalists still found in rural Aotearoa.

It is bound to be offensive to someone…all the more reason to post it.

So is the country buggered?

What ticks you off?

R. Grimwood will be buggered off with this decision

A busy-body, uptight loser  has complained to the Advertising Standards Authority about my election signs. To quote her;

The outdoor billboard advertisement read “Keeping the Buggers Honest VOTE SLATER”. There was a photo of an evil looking shark in the top left corner of the advertisement, and in the bottom right corner smalltext with an authorisation statement”

Complainant R. Grimwood, said that the use of a sexual term in a public place was gratuitous and inappropriate.

Well bugger me! I’ve never had anyone confuse a killer whale (Orcinus orca) with a “evil looking shark”, you would think a Green candidate would know the difference wouldn’t you? She should stick to working with homeless people rather than wasting copious amounts of natural resources complaining about election signs. Trees died for her whinging.

Here is a video of a Orca v. Shark

UPDATE: It seems R. Grimwood is the partner of Neil Miller, the candidate who wrote letters to the editor of the Rodney Times about my awesome signs.

Loyal readers will note that I have ignored the instructions from the ASA as well. If you don’t want me to release something about me before the 20th then don’t send it to me until the 20th. It might be useful for the ASA to get with the programme with technology and instead of slaughtering countless trees on frivolous complaints they could have emailed me a pdf.

Advertising Standars Authority v. Whaleoil

Diddums

Poor old creepy looking Neil Miller is a little upset at my signs. He has been writing to the Rodney Times. Of course poor Neil didn’t mention that he is standing himself.

Bad billboard

One of the lesser candidates in the Auckland Council elections has a billboard that reads in large letters, ‘‘Keeping the B*****s Honest.’’ To me this is not acceptable language for a person wanting to be an elected representative. It reflects poorly on our community that we are prepared to tolerate this language on a public sign. Why has the council not removed the sign as offensive? Or am I alone in thinking that this billboard has crossed the line and is indecent?

Neil Miller
Orewa

I’d like to thank him for drawing attention to the many voters in Albany my election slogan. I’m glad it offended you. I am more offended by lying politicians who will say and do anything to bribe the voters.

I think that Neil is probably just mad I’ve got more gumption than him. After all “Bugger” is only at number 31 of Broadcasting Standards Authority list of unacceptable words. I was going to use “bastards”  but that was much higher at number 24. Most politicians though I think warrant number one on the list.

And just for poor Neil who is so deeply offended by the word bugger, here is a video;

Vote Slater - Albany - Auckland - Keeping the Buggers Honest

Vote Slater - Albany - Auckland - Keeping the Buggers Honest

Andrew Williams starts his campaign with a lie

It is bad enough that Andrew Williams even got elected last time around, he has been nothing short of a disaster for the North Shore making any news more about his incontinence and drinking and mad rantings whilst under the influence in the middle of the night. It has cost ratepayers dearly, literally millions,  having mayor drunk in charge of a city.

Now he wants another turn at the trough. He won’t get there in the mayoralty stakes so he has stood in Albany Ward in an attempt to have a safety net.

This is one of the reasons I have stood in Albany Ward, to make sure that the Clown of Campbells Bay will have someone to hold him to account at every candidates meeting, someone who isn’t afraid to call him on his bluster a, bullying and bullshit.

And it is bullshit that we now turn to. In registering for the elections he has filed on his candidate return that his “ticket” or affiliation is “Independent Progressive Leadership“. Under section 57 of the Local Electoral Act 2001;

Affiliation of candidate
(1) If an electoral officer is in any doubt about a candidate’s eligibility to claim an affiliation, the electoral officer may require the candidate to produce evidence sufficient to satisfy the electoral officer of the candidate’s eligibility to claim that affiliation.
(2) If an electoral officer considers that the candidate is not eligible to claim an affiliation or that the affiliation claimed might cause offence to a reasonable person or is likely to cause confusion to or mislead electors,—

(a) the electoral officer must, after consultation with the candidate, allow the affiliation that the electoral officer and the candidate agree on to appear on voting documents in place of the affiliation specified in the notice of nomination; or (b) if the consultation referred to in paragraph (a) does not result in agreement or is not reasonably practicable to undertake, the electoral officer must not allow any affiliation in respect of that candidate to appear on voting documents.

(3) In this section, an affiliation is an endorsement by any organisation or group (whether incorporated or unincorporated).

Now I tried to have my affiliation as Whale oil Beef Hooked and this was rejected, I might add after a pleasant discussion with Dale Ofsoske the Returning Officer. His explanations to me was entirely reasonable and consistent with the law. Section 55 also covers affiliation:

Nomination of candidates
(1) Any 2 electors who are qualified to nominate a candidate may nominate a person who is qualified to be a candidate as a candidate at an election—

(a) in the prescribed manner; and

(b) before 12 noon on nomination day (the close of nominations).

(2) An electoral officer must not accept the nomination of a candidate unless—

(a) the person nominated, by notice in writing, consents to nomination and certifies that he or she is qualified to be a candidate under section 25 and is not disqualified under section 58; and

(b) the person nominated is qualified to be a candidate; and

(ba) each of the persons who nominated the candidate are persons other than the candidate; and

(c) the persons who nominated the candidate are qualified to nominate the candidate; and

(d) the nomination complies with subsections (1) and (4); and

(e) the electoral officer—

(i) receives the deposit prescribed for the applicable class of elections; and

(ii) receives that deposit before 12 noon on nomination day.

(3) The consent and certification required by subsection (2)(a)—

(a) need not be given at the time when the nomination paper is lodged but, if given separately from the nomination paper, must be given before the close of nominations; and

(b) may be given in a manner other than in writing that is approved by the electoral officer, if the person concerned is outside New Zealand.

(4) A nomination under subsection (1) must state—

(a) the name under which the candidate is seeking election:

(b) any organisation or group with which the candidate claims to be affiliated for the purposes of identifying that affiliation in the voting documents at the election:

(c) whether or not a candidate who does not claim any affiliation referred to in paragraph (b) wishes to be identified in the voting documents at the election as an independent candidate.

(5) Any person may inspect any nomination or consent without payment of any fee at any time during ordinary office hours at the office of the electoral officer.

As you can see from the legislation, an affiliation is defined as an endorsement by any organization or group (whether incorporated or unincorporated). Also, if a candidate does not wish to claim an affiliation he/she can be identified as an independent candidate (subsection 4).

Dale Ofsoske has responded to an elector via email complaining about the affiliation of a number of candidates, including that of Andrew Williams. His emails said:

Where a submitted affiliation did not meet the above legal requirements, the candidate was contacted and either asked to reconsider their affiliation or asked to provide evidence that the claimed affiliation represents a group or organisation. I have rejected quite a number of non-complying affiliations and sought a number of letters of authority to use an affiliation.

Turning now to your concerns. I will respond to the named examples:

  1. Independent Progressive Leadership (Andrew Williams). When this nomination was lodged (Friday morning) I spoke to the candidate about this affiliation and was advised that this represented a team. I took this on face value and did not seek a letter of authority.
  2. Christians Against Abortion (Phil O’Connor). This has been used for at least the last 3 triennial elections and my understanding this does represent a group.
  3. The Voice of our Community (Mike Padfield) has been accepted, but is borderline and probably should not have been.
  4. Proudly Independent (Julia Parfitt) is a group of two, but if this had been one individual, this would have been accepted as section 55(4)(c) does not require the word ‘Independent’ must be used, but the candidate can be identified as an independent – so I have allowed an adjective before the word ‘Independent’..
  5. Putting People First (Wayne Walker) is a group (letter has been provided)
  6. East Coast Bays Independent (Heather Brown). As for 4 above.

Now this is interesting. You can see that the Returning Officer has been very studious in his deliberations but also that he has phoned Williams and been given an explanation that Independent Progressive Leadership represents a team. This is quite simply a lie. There are no other candidates in the whole of new Auckland boundaries standing anywhere, including within the former North Shore city boundaries with this affiliation. Not a one.

Auckland Council Mayoral Candidates (PDF 36k)

Auckland Council Local Board Candidates (PDF 35k)

Auckland Council Ward Councillor Candidates (PDF 17k)

District Health Board Candidates (PDF 14k)

Licensing Trust Candidates (PDF 16k)

If you look at The Clown’s website you will see that “Independent Progressive Leadership” is his slogan.  There is no society, registered or unregistered organization with that name, nor any other candidates. For him to say that this moniker represents a team when it is nothing more than a slogan shows the baseness that exists within Andrew Williams and his propensity to lie when confronted with cold hard reality. With over over 700 nominations for the Auckland Council, district health boards and licensing trusts Andrew Williams “team” is just him, unless of course he is including Messrs. Daniels, Beam and Walker.

I challenge Andrew Williams to show us this team, to show us his members and to show us the endorsement as required by law, or simply retire from the election being a proven liar.

He has simply lied to Dale Ofsoske about his affiliation. The man knows no shame, he needs to be tossed from office. This is why I am standing in Albany, to remove liars from office.

Vote Slater – Albany – Keeping the Buggers Honest

Vote Slater - Albany - Auckland - Keeping the Buggers Honest

Investigate digs deeper in latest issue

Investigate magazine has released yet another expose into Police corruption.

Ian Wishart has again exposed the systemic corruption that clearly still exists in the NZ Police, particularly in Dunedin. He also exposes the butt covering and lying that is going on from the Minister to the Commissioner and right on down the chain.

I agree with Ian, it is time for a Royal Commission and it is time for a Labour minister to resign.

[quote]“POLICE MINISTER’S SOURCE HAS MAJOR QUESTIONS TO ANSWER”

Investigate magazine has dramatically upped the ante in its battle to get a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Police, with revelations that the former policeman who sprang to Howard Broad’s defence last month is himself a corrupt officer.

The magazine has published damning revelations in its latest issue, out today, that disclose private investigator Peter Gibbons has been using his police officer son-in-law to execute search warrants in favour of Gibbons’ lucrative private investigation business.

The magazine has also documented a major credibility blow for Gibbons that is also threatening the career of Police Minister Annette King – court transcripts obtained by Investigate suggest Gibbons has lied on oath to a judge – one of the most serious offences that a police officer can commit, punishable by up to 14 years’ jail if proven.

Investigate is also releasing portions of a tape recording of Peter Gibbons talking to an undercover police officer and justifying a decision by other police officers to lie to an official inquiry in order to protect their own interests.

The magazine reveals that Gibbons’ business earned $172,000 in fees from the ACC last year doing investigations, and that Gibbons used a family connection inside the Dunedin Police to obtain and execute search warrants for his own financial benefit.

Investigate also has a sworn affidavit from a witness who alleges Gibbons tipped off other members of his family whilst he was a police officer, in advance of a drug squad raid on that family member’s house.

The accusations of alleged misconduct involving Gibbons, which span nearly three decades, cover incidents as recently as just a few months ago.

Investigate editor Ian Wishart is calling on Police Minister Annette King to resign:

“Annette King is the Minister who relied on the word of a liar without bothering to check his background out. On the basis of his whispering in the Minister’s ear, she embarked on a massive PR campaign to vilify and defame both Wayne Idour and Investigate magazine.

“Ironically, it appears it was Howard Broad or Police National Headquarters who put Peter Gibbons’ name forward to the media and the Minister, so if the Minister wants someone to blame for the acute embarrassment she’s now feeling she need look no further than her police top brass.

“Annette King must resign. In one massive backfiring PR stunt, the Minister has single-handedly delivered explosive new evidence of police corruption in Dunedin and has managed to drag the government-run ACC corporation into it as well.

“This must rank as one of the most astounding own-goal’s the Helen Clark administration has ever scored against itself, an absolute public relations disaster. But even worse, the Minister recklessly defamed people as a result, exposing taxpayers to the risk of litigation.”[/quote]

I'm sorry Minister but the PCA won't cut it

Annette King, perhaps showing some leadership aspirations has moved to try to shut down debate on the allegations raised by Ian Wishart in his latest issue of Investigate magazine.

This should be viewed as nothing more than obfuscation and delay from an embattled government, that is taking hits from all quarters.

I'm afraid that the Police Complaints Authority is far to close to the Police to have any credibility with the severity of the accusations in the magazine.

The only forum suitable is a Royal Commission of Inquiry like the Australians have used to look into corruption over there. Further it would seem that people are divided 50/50on this issue. Check out the Stuff poll.

Watch the government move into full damage control today. 

Tagged:

This story ain't done yet

Much to the displeasure of Helen Clark the Investigate story is far from over.

You know you are getting close when the media are being threatened.

At present it appears only TV3 is digging, TVNZ provided some coverage but only token and quoted Dear Leader slandering Wishart.

This seems to be the government response so far, call Wishart and Investigate scurrilous, outrageous, i even heard Greg O'Conner frothing on the radio.

However most comment about the issue shows that those blithly defending Broad have not even read one line of the 17 pages of allegations in Investigate. I suggest they shut the fuck up and go read the article before commenting further.

This story is still hunting and there is plenty of legs on it yet.

My bet is Wishart will up the ante and drop some real good documents on TBR anytime soon.

Wake up fools, It is not about Chickens

As David Farrar rightly points out this story we should all be talking about is not that Howard Broad is a sick fuck or that the Police are sick as well, it is the huge list of other allegations that so far Clark et al are refusing and hoping will go away.

Let me tell you right now, they will not go away and they point scarily to the reasons behind the Police will not and have not prosecuted anyone in Labour for their prima facie law braking and their stealing of an election.

It is clear to all who look, that the Police have become political lap-dog's to the Labour Party and do their bidding, all because of some distasteful things that happened in the past.

Those things involve Michael Cullen, David Beson-Pope, Tim Barnett and an as yet un-named former Labour minister. 

The media needs to seriously ask questions of the Politicians and not accept glib namby-pamby answers. We expect the media to ask those questions that we all are asking right now.

I quote directly from DPF "But again at the end of the day, the video is not the important issue. It is the other allegations that need to be rebutted on the record by those accused (and if they have been defamed they should sue for defamation), or an official inquiry of some sort needs to occur."

I concur.