So the Prickly One is paying Whale’s legal fees http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2011/05/04/who-feathers-penguins-nest/comment-page-1/#comment-173394, which offshore account does that come out of or is it another brown bag?
I’m not sure if she is the sort of lawyer who runs a trust account – her comments have never struck me as generous, but unclear whether it is her cash or just an agency arrangement.
He set up a widget on his website to accept donations towards his legal expenditure, CK said she was one of the hundreds who donated. Big story.
for the record, and for those who cant be bothered chasing the link from Trevor, here is what CK wrote
“I will put my hand up and say I am one of those funding Whale to blog via donations for his legal fees. After the past week I have to say his sponsorship will be reviewed. But it is true that Whale has overseas funding through benevolent gifts and charity. Mine”
It’s refreshing to find someone putting up their hand and not demanding their “right” to anonymity. It’s amazing how many women have more courage to put their heads over the parapet than many men in this political arena.
I couldn’t find a reference to “hundreds” though
and?
1. Trev – are you struggling for relevance that you need to highlight what Cactus does with her own money? There were plenty of people who funded Whale’s legal battle because it was a good cause.
But since you are interested in Whale’s funding – how about you come clean about the Labour Party funding – or is that a sensitive issue for a demoralised Political Party? Tell us who your bagmen are and how much they are donating (also please add in the resources that people will / have donated while in work time)
Silence Trev – Surely not?
be gentle Monty .. the Mana Party, if it ever gets launched, will take a lot of Union funds with it.
I might have chipped in some money too, I can’t remember.. but I certainly would next time – assuming there will be a next time
Do they call it the save the whale fund?
@Monty – published last week – republished in Kiwiblog.
While they may agree on lots of things wouldn’t really say it was a match made in heaven. Whale’s views are often way out there, but he does speak with a sense of honesty. On the other hand, whenever Cactus Kate opens her gob what she’s really saying is “how far up my own backside do you think I live”?
I pitched in to Cam’s defence also. It was/is a good cause. It’s called helping those in need.
Good on her, like him or hate him name suppression for the priviliged few is something we should all rally against.
I may be wrong but havent you railed against the nonsense from the teachers council over the same thing.
Monty you were warned that you would be watched. I’m not prepared to pay legal costs when you defame on our blog so back to moderation you go. Trevor
Hi Trevor
Just to be fair, and in the interests of disclosure, Whale was paid from the same bank account I will use to buy one of your stop signs.
What was the purpose of Data Research Ltd when it existed?
This is an extraordinary admission, particularly with Whaleoil proudly declaring on this own blog that he is on the sickenss benefit. I wonder if the ‘off shore cash’ is properly declared? Looks like we taxpayers might be due some answers, and fast?
jennifer
What do you mean extraordinary? The account it was paid to was the same one that Whaleoil would have received all onshore donations as well and everyone knows about that.
@ Cactus, perhaps, but was the income properly declared to the proper authorities? Simple question, really. I just figure the long suffering taxpayer deserves an answer.
Jennifer. Is it income?
Jennifer – perhaps if you contributed then Whale would tell you. But since the donations were between private individuals it is not any of your business – who should the declare the donations to? The donations were not income as such so no declaration is necessary. (I understand that is the case but maybe Cactus can confirm so long as she does not charge me for the advice / clarification)
Who friggin cares? You’re playing in the shallow end, Trevor. Leave these buffoons to their own devices. I don’t think how much credibility you cede by giving these lightweights credibility. They’re thriving with the brief flash of noteriety your attention gives them – but, seriously, it comes at your expense. There are important things to be said about the current state of our country and its perilous future in the hands of a Tory government. Big things are at stake – and, yeah, you guys are hitting some of those issues and getting traction – but when you go off-message on one of these ‘play with the idiots’ moments it seriously undermines those bigger efforts and diminishes you.
if Whales income is from a sickness benefit, he wouldn’t pay tax and donations would have to be tens of thousands to hit the level that tax would need to be paid??
You are suggesting tax evasion here it seems jennifer. You are obliged to write to the authorities .. go ahead
Jennifer, it depends entirely how it was structured as you well know. Whale has received my advice regarding and I assume has followed it.
Oh the stupid from Labour hurts my head..
@ Cactus, thanks for the clarification that Whale has arranged his affairs so his off shore income does not diminsh his on shore benefit payments. I just hope these arrangements have been made clear to the WINZ folks, is all. It would not be fair to have the system rorted.
Cactus Kate – I hope you know what you’re doing. The definition of income under the Social Security Act is much wider than, for example, the Tax Act. For obvious reasons it captures so much more. A lot of lawyers just think in terms of the Tax Act, even when advising on benefits. This is because most lawyers think it’s beneath them to go anywhere near the Social Security Act, let alone learn anything about it, and because there’s no money in it, of course. If Whale goes down, maybe you could recommend a good lawyer he could ask to help him sue you?
Jennifer you are far more irritating than Trevor. A least Trevor is smart enough to know that one cannot keep themselves in the style I am accustomed to shelling out massive amounts of charity, especially to bloody Whaleoil! The sums we are talking about barely cover a night out for heavens sake.
I’m no more responsible for Whale’s personal financial affairs (thank God) than I am yours by telling you what you should and shouldn’t do. I am neither his tax agent or keeper. He’s apparently already been audited by WINZ recently thanks to politically motivated attack – and passed.
Again for the slow learner, I paid the same way that everyone else did from NZ. I even used my own personal bank account to pay, of which I bought a sign just now from Trevor so Labour have benefited exactly the same way.
Anton – yes I am going to be sued by someone I don’t actually legally act for and have no idea if they have done what I have told them they should do. You sound like a finance company investor with that sort of optimism.
Prickly one @642pm. Will put one up in your name just down the road from penguins nest. let’s see if he will complain then.
Hope you donated as much to Labour as to Whale.
Cactus Kate – I’ll take that as a compliment coming from you. By the way, surely you must know that a lawyer doesn’t have to be acting for someone or know whether they’ve ‘done what you have told them they should do’ to be sued by that person? Surely you must know that? There is a line, of course, and sometimes things aren’t that clear, but going by what you’ve said you’re way over it: “Whale has received my advice regarding and I assume has followed it.” You don’t have to go anywhere near this far to be liable, so looks like there ain’t no grey areas for you to hide in. Was the so-called “audit” more about the number of hours he spends running the blog, i.e. under 30 hours a week, so can keep the sickness benefit? (Although having said that he’ll be affected by the new work-test now, too.) Or maybe the Social Welfare people didn’t get to see what you told him he should hide, or didn’t need to disclose, because according to you wasn’t relevant to benefit entitlement? More to the point, for you, is did you open the Social Security Act?
Anton, you are joking?……I look forward to Whale suing me. In fact I encourage it. Can you imagine the case? You know like for a starter he couldn’t afford a lawyer could he being he had to set up a fund in question for the donations?
Am well aware of the SSA – guess what? For my law degree, like all do, I had to do a volunteer work placement. I spent a week with beneficiaries. It was 4 days and 6 hours too many. I will be fair and say that on behalf of both parties.
I know as much about Cameron Slater’s financial affairs as you do. Well perhaps not if you were complicit in his WINZ audit. Your bleating here only suggests you were the one who dobbed him in.
Some right-wingers have complained at Trevor’s posts here. I have far more concern with the patheticness of the trolls.
Cactus Kate: “…it depends entirely how it was structured…Whale has received my advice regarding and I assume has followed it.” Can’t be clearer than that. What advice did you give him? Sure it’s okay to tell when you weren’t “actually legally” acting for him (what ever that means).
Anton you are a troll and yes it is my fault for feeding you. I advise plenty of people every day, personally and professionally, not all of them I would guess follow my advice in part or full and I am not responsible for that.
It is a nonsensical “argument” we are having because I am 100% certain Whale will not be suing me for anything, I cannot see your point. I now advise you to combine sex and travel. You may actually enjoy that but if you don’t I guess you will be serving me with papers. In what country I wonder?
Sorry Cactus Kate, have got no interest, of any kind, in suing you. Have got less money than your mate Whale so there’s no way I could afford a lawyer, but mainly because it ain’t got nothing to do with me. Nice to see also that you’ve addressed all the main points – the light’s just way too dim to see into your house.
Hmmm, I bet Winston Peters wishes he received legal advice from Cactus before he/NZFirst/whoever received Owen Glenn’s money.
@ Cactus, you say “he’s apparently already been audited by WINZ recently thanks to politically motivated attack – and passed.” So he will have no trouble confirming that and releasing this audit to the public, right? He is very big, in fact huge, on transparency. Can he walk the talk? Let’s see.
Again kudos to CK for fronting all the inanity hurled at her on this thread.
““how far up my own backside do you think I live”?” Funny, that’s what I find myself asking about Mr. Whale Slater.
Mr. Slater, like some others on the right (not all), and some on the left (not all) is a pick and choose personal responsibility advocate. He believes in law and order but not when it’s something he disagrees with. Rather than champion a law change in the usual way he breaks the law to highlight his views. I’m not sure how this is different to a disgruntled low wage worker throwing a brick through a bank window to vent their frustration.
tracey – I don’t believe you: “Again kudos to CK for fronting all the inanity hurled at her on this thread.” You call that fronting? She just hurls it straight back (which is okay, of course): “I now advise you to combine sex and travel”, then went on to ignore the points – although to her credit she said didn’t understand them, which I suppose in a sense means “fronting”. No tracey, I’ve changed my mind. CK fronted everything brilliantly.
Anton, You can not believe me, it’s not right or wrong, it’s just my opinion. Heaps of people get mentioned in these threads and never show up, but I bet they’re reading.