Fredd002

Exactly. Game set and match.

The difference between your highlighted thread and this one is - one is full of hypothetical comment and this one is factual, detailing the actions of a Racing Club prepared to stop the consequences of the proposed legislation, to ensure land and surplus funds are retained in the district and, hopefully for the benefit of the local community.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/racing/118249948/westland-racing-club-makes-generous-racecourse-and-cash-donation-to-council

So why not sue the press rather than threaten to sue MP's who are doing their job inside the house?

FoE's stop clutching at straws. This topic is about WP asking ("Is he a worthy Minister of Racing"). Start your own topic about BE or other parlimantarians but this topic is about WP. I have always found in court that those with no defence go off on tangents trying to bring in irrelevant stories nothing to do with the case on hand.

TA - to quote Meatloaf, You Took the Words Right Out Of My Mouth

It is irrelevant what leaning you think MH has. He is one of the most successful radio announcers in NZ and his ratings prove that alot of people like listening to him. He does tend to make a fools of people who don't/can't answer his questions. A good listening in the morning and yesterday's interview was close to comedy

Me thinks that Stuff has opened a can of worms with their investgation and it looks like innocent donors are going to be tarred with this ongoing saga

Try to get to listen with his interview with Mike Hosking yesterday morning. Not one question answered and much mumbling and bumbling when skirting around each question with his answers. One simple question, which didn't involve anything to do regarding NZF he refused to answer because it was hypothetical - what rubbish. The qustion related to law and the answer required was a simple yes or no.

I can't believe some of the respondents (WD, FoE', Gub's, L'sO especially) to pfp's original post under this topic. What he is actually saying is stand to be nominated for a National seat or the List if you have an interest in racing as you could become the next Minister of Racing after the forthcoming election

This is what he said this morning - "But he promised to address the issue later today: "I've got a press statement coming out later today which will put the record straight," he said. It is 7.45pm and nothing yet released that I am aware of. Does this signal anything?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/117509589/nz-first-foundation-dodging-electoral-rules-records-suggest-breaches

FoE's if you can't read then don't write, to ask stupid questions, which highlights your total one-eyedness in this case. To assist you, I would have thought that Sir Maarten Wevers testimony is more accurate than what WP has given, as his knowledge of Parliament procedures and protocol in his position as Chief Executive of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet from 2004 to 2012 is far superior to that of being an MP

FoE's you are stating "evidence you think supports your personal distaste for the complainant" is widely off the mark but, given your previous one-eyed comments on this thread totally understandable. All I was highlighting, was the evidence provided by "experts" in the field, with a better understanding of the "no surprises" afforded for ministers is at odds with your mate. Like most people on this site, I am able to form my opinion based on the evidence provided to date, which shows no evidence of who "leaked" the overpayment to the media. But what we have learnt, is the evidence provided by the defence, appears to be at odds with that of WP. The court will decide if anyone is guilty but I think many NZ'ers who are following this case, have already made up their mind

Somehow FoE's at this stage, I would tend to respect the opinion of the witness over WP given what has been previously stated in court. Irrespective of your views towards Tolley and Bennett, the court is to determine if what WP is claiming, is in fact the truth. To date, his arguements have been rebutted by several "expert" witnesses and those who dealt with his original claim for the pension.