Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Dig deep enough, and look what you find...

Cameron "Whaleoil" Slater (once again New Zealand's leading blogger by some distance in the Open Parachute rankings) blogs:

A very good source has revealed that Mike Williams had a meeting with Kim Dotcom while he was incarcerated in Mt Eden.
I understand that the meeting was to solicit a donation to The Howard League for Penal Reform in order to pay for the salary, secretary, car and expenses for Mike Williams to carry out his work for The Howard League for Penal Reform.
That makes the revelations being spruiked very hard by Labour very interesting because the Mike Williams who visited Kim Dotcom in jail is the same Mike Williams who was also the Labour party president, and the same Mike Williams who had 5 board appointments under Labour….and the same Mike Williams who flew to Melbourne to dig up a scandal against John Key and the very same Mike Williams who has been commenting in the media about all of this fuss and bother.
This is of course the same Mike Williams who asked Owen Glenn for a job, and the same Mike Williams who approved the Owen Glenn donation to Winston Peters.
What other things were discussed by Mike Williams and Kim Dotcom during this visit in prison….of course the visitors records will clearly clearly show the visit, prison tend to keep records like that….along with video footage.

This is interesting; very interesting indeed. If these allegations are true, it casts a very different light on the John Banks affair. Mike Williams has been involved in former Labour Party smears, and it is entirely conceivable that he has been the go-to guy with Kim Dotcom in an orchestrated attempt by Labour to destroy John Banks.

It would explain much; Trevor Mallard's gleeful exhortations for people to watch Campbell Live last Friday night, some time before the show went to air; Williams' questioning of Banks on the Q&A programme on TVNZ on Sunday. And it might even give an insight into why Trevor Mallard looked towards the Press Gallery seats in the gallery at Parliament this afternoon when he asked John Key about Dotcom's recommendation of Hong Kong accomodation for Banks on a recent trip to Hong Kong.

There's another thing that it might explain; John Key standing by the Act MP, accepting Banks' word that no law has been broken with regard to local electoral spending. Just as Key stood staunch when Labour tried to attack him over the H-Fee just before the 2008 election, he is holding his ground now. Perhaps he smells a rat as well.

Over the weekend there was speculation that Dotcom's revelations were a response to not receiving support from John Banks after Dotcom's arrest earlier in the year. Perhaps there's a ring of truth in this, and any desire for revenge that Kim Dotcom has is being stoked by members of the Labour Party.

We'll just make one thing clear. If John Banks is found to have knowingly broken the Local Electoral Act, he will have to take the consequemces, and he won't get any sympathy from us. But we'll cross that bridge when we come to it; in the meantime, the waters through which his Cabbage Boat is passing have just become even more muddied.

21 comments:

Robert Winter said...

This is a very long bow indeed. If, indeed, this visit took place, canvassing for funds quite legally for a NGO is different from acquiring money for an electoral campaign that is at least in breach of the principles of electoral law. And to then assert further conspiracy between Labour and Dotcom is even more of a leap.Evidence please?

Mr Slater is not a reliable source. I rarely read his blog (too unpleasant by far) and his commentators appear sometimes to froth overmuch but it is clear that he is a mouthpiece for peculiarly anti-union, anti-Left and anti-democratic nonsense. Free speech is a good thing; it means that we have to accept stuff like that.

Anonymous said...

Even if true (I don't believe it is. Robert Winter's instincts have been excellent to date), it doesn't alter anything John Banks has said, (or not said) or done. Banks is just where he was before, crouched in a dark corner, bullshitting as hard so hard his neck veins are fit to pop!.

Anonymous said...

There's just one flaw in Robert's logic; why would you be asking for a donation fr a man who at that point was in prison, likely to be extradited, and most importantly whose assets were frozen? This smells of smoke, just before it bursts into flame.

Rat Smeller

Anonymous said...

Key is a disgrace. It really looks like he he has no backbone and no morals beyond protecting his and his mate's positions. On this issue, Banks and he are pathetic and his strategy/performance is just plain bonkers. I won't be voting for Key again, he should stand Banks down immediately and then clear the matter up. He's affecting how people view him and I used to back his honesty.

Anonymous said...

CampbellLive.
That's all.

Judge Holden said...

"If John Banks is found to have knowingly broken the Local Electoral Act, he will have to take the consequemces, and he won't get any sympathy from us. But we'll cross that bridge when we come to it"

So his lying and ludicrously unethical, not to mention weird, conduct are all right as long as he can squeeze through a legal loop-hole? Typical tory sense of morality.

"And it might even give an insight into why Trevor Mallard looked towards the Press Gallery seats in the gallery at Parliament this afternoon when he asked John Key about Dotcom's recommendation of Hong Kong accomodation for Banks on a recent trip to Hong Kong."

Are you drunk?

Campbell John said...

"Dig deep enough, and look what you find..."

James Stephenson said...

The only reason that Banksie is not guilty of merely helping a constituent, is that he was a private citizen when he lobbied on KDC's behalf...

Keeping Stock said...

@ Robert W - Slater is so reliable that someone in Labour is leaking information to him on a regular basis; someone very close to the leadership.

@ Rat Smeller - excellent points. I doubt that Mr Dotcom would have had much in the way of ready cash when Williams allegedly visited him.

@ Judge Holden - did you actually see QT this afternoon? And no, I'm not drunk.

@ James S - and that's the nuts and bolts of this issue; Banks was for all intents and concerns a non-entity when he filed his LG return; a former mayor, and a future MP.

Robert Winter said...

Being the vessel into which someone micturates does not equate to reliability!

Keeping Stock said...

Point taken Robert, but I suggest that you check out WO's blog later tody when he breaks a story of not inconsiderable significance; non-political, as far as I am aware.

And as for comments on his blog, they're no better or no worse than some of the venomous ones that get left unmoderated at The Standard, where having contrary opinions to those of the authors is considered a hanging offence. Free speech is indeed a "good thing"!

Anonymous said...

Robert Winter said these two things:

1. "Mr Slater is not a reliable source."
Mr Slater seems to be quoted regularly by MSM folk (sometimes attributed, sometimes not), and much of what he writes is borne out by subsequent events.
Mr Winter's opinion "that he is not a reliable source" does not make it so.



2. "I rarely read his blog (too unpleasant by far)...."

Mr Slater's blog is now the most widely read of NZ blogs so Mr Winter's absence from his readership may not be material. I suspect Mr Winter is a regular at some other blogs which have an unpleasantness about them which he "may" not notice. Unpleasantness is unpleasantness whether one accepts it or not.

David

Anonymous said...

Slater and Banks are well matched - both sleazy Tories. I'm not so delicate as Robert and read Slater's blog. It may well be widely read (so was Playboy magazine) but it's juvenile, petty stuff. Mr Winter's decision to stay away from the oil is a mature one. Many times here on Keeping Stock, Slaters foul claims have been posted to show how dispicable his behaviour is and KS has been forced to own to that. It's easy enough to drop some of Slaters more foul statements here again - shall I, for the sake of clarity?

Sthn.Jeff said...

@ Robert Winter

To suggest Williams visit to Dotcom (if it did in fact occur) was to solicit funds shows how ridiculous Williams is and by association you for suggesting it. I mean if you are Dotcom, sitting inside a Jail cell having just had your liberty taken and all your assets frozen, a pregnant wife and kids on the outside and facing possible extradition, you can just imagine what the response would be to some wanker turning up asking for money ffs.

IHStewart said...

Mike Williams wasn't soliciting a donation he was organising a hotel room.

Robert Winter said...

I will admit happily that whether I read Mr Slater matters not one jot, particularly to him, I'm sure. It is a matter of taste as much as anything.

Judge Holden said...

I see you've been trying to talk up this nonsense on Farrar's blog IV2. No one else cares and Slater's provided no evidence, as usual. Meanwhile Bank's told another fib about his hotel room, which you haven't even tried to spin. It just gets worse and worse having to defend and deflect for these guys doesn't it?

Keeping Stock said...

I beg to differ Judge. Slater has posted a very informative post today detailing exactly what Williams was seeking from Dotcom whilst he was banged up; you have to wonder who's feeding him these tasty morsels...

Anonymous said...

"Mr Slater's blog is now the most widely read of NZ blogs"

only by morons...

Oh and by the way, it's Simon Lusk who writes most the political crap on whaleoil blog.

Richard

Keeping Stock said...

A bit bitter and twisted there Richard; you've been reading too many Trevor Mallard press releases about Lusk.

Judge Holden said...

"Slater has posted a very informative post today detailing exactly what Williams was seeking from Dotcom whilst he was banged up;"

Evidence provided=none. You've bought it hook, line and sinker as you think it somehow exonerates Banks from his constant lies and unethical conduct. This think has also exposed Key as a clueless hypocrite as well hasn't it?