Every now and again I feel generous. I’ve been looking hard for a way to believe Key and his “public interest” failure to further comment around Worth. Don’t think there is a security issue, couldn’t be the criminal stuff because that was already out there. So maybe it was money. Key was protecting the crown financial position.
The only answer I can think of is that Worth threatened to sue him and Key took advice to back off at that point.
Any other ideas.??
Anything that goes to the substance of the issue will be moderated out.
Either way, he should have at least said why he wasn’t answering. If its good enough for the OIA, its good enough for Parliament.
I think it would have made Key look silly as people would think he should have taken heed of the warning signs earlier and got rid of Worth well before he did. As a lawyer, Worth would have threatened all kinds of action, that’s what lawyers do.
Perhaps there was an undisclosed 3rd complainant who went to Key previously. Now that is something he really wouldnt want to talk about
funny thatwe are going on about a silly old tory but no mention of the foreshore.why is that?dont tell blocked for foul lanuage or off topic lol
That answer doesn’t work for me. Key has refused to answer in the House – where any statement would be protected by absolute privilege.
Not sure that a PM can restrict comment on matters like this to the House Graeme.
graham lowe – 1. i’m pretty unhappy that you are using the name of someone who I’ve generally really admired – one of NZs best coaches tho he has made the odd unusual comment. 2. I just don’t understand what you are trying to say.
As far as I can see, Key did not want to embarrass Richard Worth because it could embarrass the National Party.
I read that the Korean woman has backed off, satisfied with Worth’s resignation. She is happy, Key is happy, and Worth has gone to ground.
I see nothing more in this for the Opposition unless Richard Worth chooses to tell.
so the name my parents choice of name for their child is upseting for you trevor.my point is its been 3 days since the report on the forshore and seabed lawand not a mention on this site.even your leader is reported in the media as saying in hindsite it wasnt a good law like the Election law reforms you guys did.instead you spend time going on about silly old richard worth.
if if really upsets u i could show you my birth certifcate to prove that graham lowe is my legal and given name
No need Graham I believe you. I just need a bit of reassurance that you have never coached the Kiwis. While the person who I hope is another Graham Lowe has done a few unusual things over the years I just need to know you aren’t him. Trevor
holding the House in discontent is a mebbe; holding it with contempt is not.. yes..? or should that be no!
Graham Lowe -
What I am hearing, even from very conservative people, is that the Foreshore and Seabed legislation is fine the way it is.
Maybe you are a member of the Maori Party Graham, or the National Party itself. This issue gives both parties the chance to tickle each others’ tummies, but other than that, it sucks.
I thought exactly what Graeme did. It’s true he would be protected legally but that wouldn’t protect him politically.
If your hypothetical was the reason (I doubt it is, but it’s a nice thought-experiment) the PM could state in the House the reason and then just refuse to be drawn outside it. He’d be asked outside the House, and just say “I’m not prepared to answer questions on that matter in this forum and risk financial cost to the Government”. And once you (or Pete) got all the answers in the House, people would stop asking outside it.
Of course, it hasn’t happened, but if litigation was the fear, it could play out like that quite easily.
i am not a member of the maori party or national.i am however a farmer and a landowner and uncomfortable whenever any landrights are taken by the state.The issue would have been worked out better 5 years ago because maroi had to prove that iwi have a long relationship with particular area.Now because of the over reaction people includeing maori and pakaha believe that they(maori)have ownership over all beaches.dont blame national for this trevor you guys did this because you thought their would be votes in it sometimes you have to do whats right not whats popular
Trevor how is the OIA request tracking, the one to the Prime Minister on the reason he sacked Worth?
I think that Key lurched into making an ill-considered decision early on. (I have to show the critics that I am bold and decisive.) Having committed himself he has a choice:
a.Expose himself to ridicule for acting in an un-PM way?
OR
b. Hide the error and weather the speculation? (He has chosen plan b. and of course so far he has survived the speculation.
How’s THAT?
Graham Lowe
What exactly are you trying to say?
How does being a farmer impact on foreshore and beaches? Who does “own” them? I thought it was the state, i.e. us!
Michael Cullen as I recall went into all this in depth before the legislation went through. He was a much better opearator than anyone I can see on the National benches.
Best advice I am told is to leave well alone – except that it is presumably payback time for Turia and Sharples!
But I hold National accountable for any further changes and so should you.
Trevor how is the OIA request tracking, the one to the Prime Minister on the reason he sacked Worth?
I’ve had nothing but silence on my one.
Is Graham Lowe trying to derail discussion? Surely not!
Perhaps Worth tried to blackmail Key?
Considering how pathetic Goff and Labour looked after the truth about the Indian honeypot was divulged I would have thought that this was a subject Labour would stay away from. Like travel expenses.
Why is it mostly leftwing blogs that “moderate” ones comments? Are you scared of anything in particular?
[Commenters have their first comment automatically held in moderation, from then on comments will appear automatically if you use the same name/email - admin]
not all beaches are owened by the state.it is also untrue that all waterways are covered by the queens chain.it is not uncoman in canterbury to have titles going to the centre of the river or costal areas going to the hightide mark.now as a landowner i have paid good money to own it i dont want a government to come along and take my land without just cause.the court case was about native land use and transfering that to proprity rights remembering it hadn’t been fully established in law if that was they case.
Off topic and offensive deleted Trevor
Off topic and offensive. Deleted Trevor
to boris 40% of all beaches are privately owened(owned by white people)they werent taken.your idea too leave well alone would make a conserative happy.That would mean no treaty settlements.no equal rights for women(hey the guys had it good).no affirmative action for maori hey you labour supportys are more racists than torys lol
Too late to apologise. One month ban. Trevor
Only taken out because it responded to Graham Lowe but Maynard makes a valid point that not having a moderated blog (except for first comments) is placed at risk by idiots. Trevor
Pete is handling OIA requests. Will check with him. Update Pete says several due soon – nothing back yet.
Why do continue to behave like some kind of deleted offensive Trevor regarding Worth – it’s the kind of mindless imaginings you’d come across in the Women’s weekly.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.