National Ministers again caught having botched something.
We know that National once regarded anything as OK so long as it
wasn't illegal.
Then a year or so ago they moved to saying "its OK if you are not
taken to court",
then to "its OK if a court doesn't rule against you"
Now Finlayson (who just happens to be Attorney-General!) is saying
that anything he does is OK even if a court tells him he was wrong -
so long as there is no penalty to him! http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/minister-refuses-to-apologise-after-botched-land-deal-2016060918#axzz4B8KmKhTX
Finlayson may know a little about the law - he was appointed
Attroney-General by National, but had to recomend himself to be
appointed a QC. He seems to have forgottent hat a lawyer is supposed
to have ethics as well as legal cunning . . .
The arrogance has no bounds - time they went.
Rich80105 wrote:
National Ministers again caught having botched something.
We know that National once regarded anything as OK so long as it
wasn't illegal.
Then a year or so ago they moved to saying "its OK if you are not
taken to court",
then to "its OK if a court doesn't rule against you"
Now Finlayson (who just happens to be Attorney-General!) is saying
that anything he does is OK even if a court tells him he was wrong -
so long as there is no penalty to him!
http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/minister-refuses-to-apologise-after-botched-land-deal-2016060918#axzz4B8KmKhTX
Finlayson may know a little about the law - he was appointed
Attroney-General by National, but had to recomend himself to be
appointed a QC. He seems to have forgottent hat a lawyer is supposed
to have ethics as well as legal cunning . . .
The arrogance has no bounds - time they went.
Too bad there's no suitable replacement in sight.
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:28:21 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
National Ministers again caught having botched something.
We know that National once regarded anything as OK so long as it
wasn't illegal.
Then a year or so ago they moved to saying "its OK if you are not
taken to court",
then to "its OK if a court doesn't rule against you"
Now Finlayson (who just happens to be Attorney-General!) is saying
that anything he does is OK even if a court tells him he was wrong -
so long as there is no penalty to him!
http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/minister-refuses-to-apologise-after-botched-land-deal-2016060918#axzz4B8KmKhTX
Finlayson may know a little about the law - he was appointed
Attroney-General by National, but had to recomend himself to be
appointed a QC. He seems to have forgottent hat a lawyer is supposed
to have ethics as well as legal cunning . . .
The arrogance has no bounds - time they went.
Too bad there's no suitable replacement in sight.
There can only be a National/UF/ACT/Maori MP as Attorney General until
late next year Allistar - but I suspect there are a few who would not
be quite as arrogant as Finlayson until then - horrible as Finlayson
is, the rest of them would cause shudders pretty much to the same
extent on either or both ethical or competence grounds.
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 14:13:49 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:28:21 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
National Ministers again caught having botched something.
We know that National once regarded anything as OK so long as it
wasn't illegal.
Then a year or so ago they moved to saying "its OK if you are not
taken to court",
then to "its OK if a court doesn't rule against you"
Now Finlayson (who just happens to be Attorney-General!) is saying
that anything he does is OK even if a court tells him he was wrong -
so long as there is no penalty to him!
http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/minister-refuses-to-apologise-after-botched-land-deal-2016060918#axzz4B8KmKhTX
Finlayson may know a little about the law - he was appointed
Attroney-General by National, but had to recomend himself to be
appointed a QC. He seems to have forgottent hat a lawyer is supposed
to have ethics as well as legal cunning . . .
The arrogance has no bounds - time they went.
Too bad there's no suitable replacement in sight.
There can only be a National/UF/ACT/Maori MP as Attorney General until
late next year Allistar - but I suspect there are a few who would not
be quite as arrogant as Finlayson until then - horrible as Finlayson
is, the rest of them would cause shudders pretty much to the same
extent on either or both ethical or competence grounds.
In a Labour/Greens/NZF government there would be a similar limitation
to the pool of candidates. Who do you think would make a better AG
from the current opposition?
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 14:13:49 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:28:21 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
National Ministers again caught having botched something.
We know that National once regarded anything as OK so long as it
wasn't illegal.
Then a year or so ago they moved to saying "its OK if you are not
taken to court",
then to "its OK if a court doesn't rule against you"
Now Finlayson (who just happens to be Attorney-General!) is saying
that anything he does is OK even if a court tells him he was wrong -
so long as there is no penalty to him!
http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/minister-refuses-to-apologise-after-botched-land-deal-2016060918#axzz4B8KmKhTX
Finlayson may know a little about the law - he was appointed
Attroney-General by National, but had to recomend himself to be
appointed a QC. He seems to have forgotten that a lawyer is supposed
to have ethics as well as legal cunning . . .
The arrogance has no bounds - time they went.
Too bad there's no suitable replacement in sight.
There can only be a National/UF/ACT/Maori MP as Attorney General until
late next year Allistar - but I suspect there are a few who would not
be quite as arrogant as Finlayson until then - horrible as Finlayson
is, the rest of them would cause shudders pretty much to the same
extent on either or both ethical or competence grounds.
In a Labour/Greens/NZF government there would be a similar limitation
to the pool of candidates. Who do you think would make a better AG
from the current opposition?
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:49:53 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 14:13:49 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:28:21 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
National Ministers again caught having botched something.
We know that National once regarded anything as OK so long as it
wasn't illegal.
Then a year or so ago they moved to saying "its OK if you are not
taken to court",
then to "its OK if a court doesn't rule against you"
Now Finlayson (who just happens to be Attorney-General!) is saying
that anything he does is OK even if a court tells him he was wrong - >>>>> so long as there is no penalty to him!
http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/minister-refuses-to-apologise-after-botched-land-deal-2016060918#axzz4B8KmKhTX
Finlayson may know a little about the law - he was appointed
Attroney-General by National, but had to recomend himself to be
appointed a QC. He seems to have forgotten that a lawyer is supposed >>>>> to have ethics as well as legal cunning . . .
The arrogance has no bounds - time they went.
Too bad there's no suitable replacement in sight.
There can only be a National/UF/ACT/Maori MP as Attorney General until >>>late next year Allistar - but I suspect there are a few who would not
be quite as arrogant as Finlayson until then - horrible as Finlayson
is, the rest of them would cause shudders pretty much to the same
extent on either or both ethical or competence grounds.
In a Labour/Greens/NZF government there would be a similar limitation
to the pool of candidates. Who do you think would make a better AG
from the current opposition?
Its a bit early for that - unless of course National decide that the
trend isn't in their favour and they decide to go to an election
early. A Labour/Green government will of course be a little more in
favour of the rule of law, and due process
- I's sure there will be
quite a few suitable candidates for Attorney General - including the possibility of a new MP - it will of course be afterthe next election.
Quite right of you to look forward to that change in 2017 though . .
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:07:31 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
Still waiting for labour for labour to apologies to the Chinese.
That's right clack did apologise a few years ago.
Through her back teeth.
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:49:53 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 14:13:49 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:28:21 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
National Ministers again caught having botched something.
We know that National once regarded anything as OK so long as it
wasn't illegal.
Then a year or so ago they moved to saying "its OK if you are not
taken to court",
then to "its OK if a court doesn't rule against you"
Now Finlayson (who just happens to be Attorney-General!) is saying
that anything he does is OK even if a court tells him he was wrong - >>>>> so long as there is no penalty to him!
http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/minister-refuses-to-apologise-after-botched-land-deal-2016060918#axzz4B8KmKhTX
Finlayson may know a little about the law - he was appointed
Attroney-General by National, but had to recomend himself to be
appointed a QC. He seems to have forgotten that a lawyer is supposed >>>>> to have ethics as well as legal cunning . . .
The arrogance has no bounds - time they went.
Too bad there's no suitable replacement in sight.
There can only be a National/UF/ACT/Maori MP as Attorney General until >>>late next year Allistar - but I suspect there are a few who would not
be quite as arrogant as Finlayson until then - horrible as Finlayson
is, the rest of them would cause shudders pretty much to the same
extent on either or both ethical or competence grounds.
In a Labour/Greens/NZF government there would be a similar limitation
to the pool of candidates. Who do you think would make a better AG
from the current opposition?
Its a bit early for that - unless of course National decide that the
trend isn't in their favour and they decide to go to an election
early. A Labour/Green government will of course be a little more in
favour of the rule of law, and due process - I's sure there will be
quite a few suitable candidates for Attorney General - including the >possibility of a new MP - it will of course be afterthe next election.
Quite right of you to look forward to that change in 2017 though . .
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 22:34:57 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:49:53 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 14:13:49 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:28:21 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>>wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
National Ministers again caught having botched something.
We know that National once regarded anything as OK so long as it
wasn't illegal.
Then a year or so ago they moved to saying "its OK if you are not
taken to court",
then to "its OK if a court doesn't rule against you"
Now Finlayson (who just happens to be Attorney-General!) is saying >>>>>> that anything he does is OK even if a court tells him he was wrong - >>>>>> so long as there is no penalty to him!
http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/minister-refuses-to-apologise-after-botched-land-deal-2016060918#axzz4B8KmKhTX
Finlayson may know a little about the law - he was appointed
Attroney-General by National, but had to recomend himself to be
appointed a QC. He seems to have forgotten that a lawyer is supposed >>>>>> to have ethics as well as legal cunning . . .
The arrogance has no bounds - time they went.
Too bad there's no suitable replacement in sight.
There can only be a National/UF/ACT/Maori MP as Attorney General until >>>>late next year Allistar - but I suspect there are a few who would not >>>>be quite as arrogant as Finlayson until then - horrible as Finlayson >>>>is, the rest of them would cause shudders pretty much to the same >>>>extent on either or both ethical or competence grounds.
In a Labour/Greens/NZF government there would be a similar limitation
to the pool of candidates. Who do you think would make a better AG
from the current opposition?
Its a bit early for that - unless of course National decide that the
trend isn't in their favour and they decide to go to an election
early. A Labour/Green government will of course be a little more in
favour of the rule of law, and due process - I's sure there will be
quite a few suitable candidates for Attorney General - including the >>possibility of a new MP - it will of course be afterthe next election. >>Quite right of you to look forward to that change in 2017 though . .
Rich your post above entirely misses the points I made. I posed the
question 'Who do you think would make a better AG from the current
pool of candidates' in reference to those in the current opposition
parties. How can it be 'a bit early' to opine on that?
A change in Government is inevitable as you say - but it certainlyBy definition the Labour/Green bloc will have 61 MPs to form the
wont be until Labour have the new MPs needed to reverse the popularity
slide that began in the 2008 election. That's hard to do when Labour
in particular have so few MPs now (32 is their lowest in the MMP era
(1996 onwards)). So where are the new MPs coming from Rich?
SinceNone of that is relevant to whether Finlaysons attitudes are
2008 how many Parliamentary leaders have Labour had (4) and how much
progress have they made in winning back the levels of popular support
needed to unseat National (yet to arrest the decline from 2008 to 2014 >elections)?
After 8 years in power with gradually increasing levels of support
since the 2008 general election, it would take a major reversal of
fortune for National to loose in 2017. Labour, the Greens and Winston
First demonstrably don't have the talent to make that happen and
National do have the talent to remain in power.
Rich your post above entirely misses the points I made. I posed the
question 'Who do you think would make a better AG from the current
pool of candidates' in reference to those in the current opposition
parties. How can it be 'a bit early' to opine on that?
On 12/06/2016 1:38 p.m., Crash wrote:
Rich your post above entirely misses the points I made. I posed the question 'Who do you think would make a better AG from the current
pool of candidates' in reference to those in the current opposition parties. How can it be 'a bit early' to opine on that?
David Parker is attorney general when National lose.
He would be way better than Findlayson, who is a nasty prick.
On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 18:10:20 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>acerbic put-down.
wrote:
On Monday, 13 June 2016 11:48:44 UTC+12, victor wrote:
On 12/06/2016 1:38 p.m., Crash wrote:
Rich your post above entirely misses the points I made. I posed the
question 'Who do you think would make a better AG from the current
pool of candidates' in reference to those in the current opposition
parties. How can it be 'a bit early' to opine on that?
David Parker is attorney general when National lose.
He would be way better than Findlayson, who is a nasty prick.
Finlayson is just like Michael Cullen - sharp minded and quick with an
But that's OK when you are Labour, eh victor?
Finlayson does not have the competence of Cullen - orhte humour.
Just look at the video here:
http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/minister-refuses-to-apologise-after-botched-land-deal-2016060918#axzz4B8KmKhTX
That is nothing like Michael Cullen.
On Monday, 13 June 2016 11:48:44 UTC+12, victor wrote:put-down.
On 12/06/2016 1:38 p.m., Crash wrote:
Rich your post above entirely misses the points I made. I posed the
question 'Who do you think would make a better AG from the current
pool of candidates' in reference to those in the current opposition
parties. How can it be 'a bit early' to opine on that?
David Parker is attorney general when National lose.
He would be way better than Findlayson, who is a nasty prick.
Finlayson is just like Michael Cullen - sharp minded and quick with an acerbic
But that's OK when you are Labour, eh victor?
On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 22:50:29 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>Whakahemo's claims had been settled.
wrote:
On Monday, 13 June 2016 17:11:53 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 18:10:20 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Monday, 13 June 2016 11:48:44 UTC+12, victor wrote:
On 12/06/2016 1:38 p.m., Crash wrote:
Rich your post above entirely misses the points I made. I posed the >>> >> > question 'Who do you think would make a better AG from the current
pool of candidates' in reference to those in the current opposition >>> >> > parties. How can it be 'a bit early' to opine on that?
David Parker is attorney general when National lose.
He would be way better than Findlayson, who is a nasty prick.
Finlayson is just like Michael Cullen - sharp minded and quick with an acerbic put-down.
But that's OK when you are Labour, eh victor?
Finlayson does not have the competence of Cullen - orhte humour.
Just look at the video here:
http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/minister-refuses-to-apologise-after-botched-land-deal-2016060918#axzz4B8KmKhTX
That is nothing like Michael Cullen.
Cullen has plenty to apologise for - such as saddling us with Kiwirail.
Finlayson not so much:
"Landcorp sought advice from the Office of Treaty Settlements, who said Ng?ti
The Supreme Court says that advice was wrong."
Why should Finlayson apologise for the OTS getting a legal finding wrong?
Perhaps because he was representing the government, and he is Minster
in charge of Treaty Settlements. It would be normal for a judgement
that found fault with the Ministry to have referred to the position of >Minister - this judgement was specific in naming Chris Finlayson -
whose personal actions were deemed to have been wrong.
The concept of indivisual responsibility appears to have been lost
somewhere in the complexity of multiple agencies invloved - perhaps
that is all intended to make it easier to blur Minsterial
responsibilities and imfer that it is the fault of public servants -
it too often works for the housing crisis for examle where there are
three Ministers who can always point away from themselves. This o ne >Finlayson shares the blame for - but of course personal responsibility
is lost on the unethical National Ministers.
On Monday, 13 June 2016 17:11:53 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 18:10:20 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Monday, 13 June 2016 11:48:44 UTC+12, victor wrote:
On 12/06/2016 1:38 p.m., Crash wrote:
Rich your post above entirely misses the points I made. I posed the
question 'Who do you think would make a better AG from the current
pool of candidates' in reference to those in the current opposition
parties. How can it be 'a bit early' to opine on that?
David Parker is attorney general when National lose.
He would be way better than Findlayson, who is a nasty prick.
Finlayson is just like Michael Cullen - sharp minded and quick with an acerbic put-down.
But that's OK when you are Labour, eh victor?
Finlayson does not have the competence of Cullen - orhte humour.
Just look at the video here:
http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/minister-refuses-to-apologise-after-botched-land-deal-2016060918#axzz4B8KmKhTX
That is nothing like Michael Cullen.
Cullen has plenty to apologise for - such as saddling us with Kiwirail.
Finlayson not so much:
"Landcorp sought advice from the Office of Treaty Settlements, who said Ng?ti Whakahemo's claims had been settled.
The Supreme Court says that advice was wrong."
Why should Finlayson apologise for the OTS getting a legal finding wrong?
On Monday, 13 June 2016 17:11:53 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:Ngāti Whakahemo's claims had been settled.
On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 18:10:20 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Monday, 13 June 2016 11:48:44 UTC+12, victor wrote:
On 12/06/2016 1:38 p.m., Crash wrote:
Rich your post above entirely misses the points I made. I posed the >>>>> question 'Who do you think would make a better AG from the current
pool of candidates' in reference to those in the current opposition
parties. How can it be 'a bit early' to opine on that?
David Parker is attorney general when National lose.
He would be way better than Findlayson, who is a nasty prick.
Finlayson is just like Michael Cullen - sharp minded and quick with an acerbic put-down.
But that's OK when you are Labour, eh victor?
Finlayson does not have the competence of Cullen - orhte humour.
Just look at the video here:
http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/minister-refuses-to-apologise-after-botched-land-deal-2016060918#axzz4B8KmKhTX
That is nothing like Michael Cullen.
Cullen has plenty to apologise for - such as saddling us with Kiwirail.
Finlayson not so much:
"Landcorp sought advice from the Office of Treaty Settlements, who said
The Supreme Court says that advice was wrong."
Why should Finlayson apologise for the OTS getting a legal finding wrong?
National Ministers again caught having botched something.
We know that National once regarded anything as OK so long as it
wasn't illegal.
Then a year or so ago they moved to saying "its OK if you are not
taken to court",
then to "its OK if a court doesn't rule against you"
Now Finlayson (who just happens to be Attorney-General!) is saying
that anything he does is OK even if a court tells him he was wrong -
so long as there is no penalty to him! http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/minister-refuses-to-apologise-after-botched-land-deal-2016060918#axzz4B8KmKhTX
Finlayson may know a little about the law - he was appointed
Attroney-General by National, but had to recomend himself to be
appointed a QC. He seems to have forgottent hat a lawyer is supposed
to have ethics as well as legal cunning . . .
The arrogance has no bounds - time they went.
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 14:13:49 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:28:21 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
National Ministers again caught having botched something.
We know that National once regarded anything as OK so long as it
wasn't illegal.
Then a year or so ago they moved to saying "its OK if you are not
taken to court",
then to "its OK if a court doesn't rule against you"
Now Finlayson (who just happens to be Attorney-General!) is saying
that anything he does is OK even if a court tells him he was wrong -
so long as there is no penalty to him!
http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/minister-refuses-to-apologise-after-botched-land-deal-2016060918#axzz4B8KmKhTX
Finlayson may know a little about the law - he was appointed
Attroney-General by National, but had to recomend himself to be
appointed a QC. He seems to have forgottent hat a lawyer is supposed
to have ethics as well as legal cunning . . .
The arrogance has no bounds - time they went.
Too bad there's no suitable replacement in sight.
There can only be a National/UF/ACT/Maori MP as Attorney General until
late next year Allistar - but I suspect there are a few who would not
be quite as arrogant as Finlayson until then - horrible as Finlayson
is, the rest of them would cause shudders pretty much to the same
extent on either or both ethical or competence grounds.
In a Labour/Greens/NZF government there would be a similar limitation
to the pool of candidates. Who do you think would make a better AG
from the current opposition?
--
Crash McBash
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:49:53 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 14:13:49 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:28:21 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com> >>>wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
National Ministers again caught having botched something.
We know that National once regarded anything as OK so long as it
wasn't illegal.
Then a year or so ago they moved to saying "its OK if you are not
taken to court",
then to "its OK if a court doesn't rule against you"
Now Finlayson (who just happens to be Attorney-General!) is saying
that anything he does is OK even if a court tells him he was wrong - >>>>> so long as there is no penalty to him!
http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/minister-refuses-to-apologise-after-botched-land-deal-2016060918#axzz4B8KmKhTX
Finlayson may know a little about the law - he was appointed
Attroney-General by National, but had to recomend himself to be
appointed a QC. He seems to have forgotten that a lawyer is supposed >>>>> to have ethics as well as legal cunning . . .
The arrogance has no bounds - time they went.
Too bad there's no suitable replacement in sight.
There can only be a National/UF/ACT/Maori MP as Attorney General until >>>late next year Allistar - but I suspect there are a few who would not
be quite as arrogant as Finlayson until then - horrible as Finlayson
is, the rest of them would cause shudders pretty much to the same
extent on either or both ethical or competence grounds.
In a Labour/Greens/NZF government there would be a similar limitation
to the pool of candidates. Who do you think would make a better AG
from the current opposition?
Its a bit early for that - unless of course National decide that the
trend isn't in their favour and they decide to go to an election
early. A Labour/Green government will of course be a little more in
favour of the rule of law, and due process - I's sure there will be
quite a few suitable candidates for Attorney General - including the possibility of a new MP - it will of course be afterthe next election.
Quite right of you to look forward to that change in 2017 though . .
On 12/06/2016 1:38 p.m., Crash wrote:
Rich your post above entirely misses the points I made. I posed the
question 'Who do you think would make a better AG from the current
pool of candidates' in reference to those in the current opposition
parties. How can it be 'a bit early' to opine on that?
David Parker is attorney general when National lose.
He would be way better than Findlayson, who is a nasty prick.
On 6/13/2016 5:50 PM, JohnO wrote:
On Monday, 13 June 2016 17:11:53 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 18:10:20 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Monday, 13 June 2016 11:48:44 UTC+12, victor wrote:
On 12/06/2016 1:38 p.m., Crash wrote:
Rich your post above entirely misses the points I made. I posed the >>>>>> question 'Who do you think would make a better AG from the current >>>>>> pool of candidates' in reference to those in the current opposition >>>>>> parties. How can it be 'a bit early' to opine on that?
David Parker is attorney general when National lose.
He would be way better than Findlayson, who is a nasty prick.
Finlayson is just like Michael Cullen - sharp minded and quick with an >>>> acerbic put-down.
But that's OK when you are Labour, eh victor?
Finlayson does not have the competence of Cullen - orhte humour.
Just look at the video here:
http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/minister-refuses-to-apologise-after-botched-land-deal-2016060918#axzz4B8KmKhTX
That is nothing like Michael Cullen.
Cullen has plenty to apologise for - such as saddling us with Kiwirail.
Finlayson not so much:
"Landcorp sought advice from the Office of Treaty Settlements, who said
Ngati Whakahemo's claims had been settled.
The Supreme Court says that advice was wrong."
Why should Finlayson apologise for the OTS getting a legal finding wrong?
Because Liebor have nothing else to moan about this week perhaps ?
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:07:31 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Still waiting for labour for labour to apologies to the Chinese.
That's right clack did apologise a few years ago.
Through her back teeth.
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 188:25:45 |
| Calls: | 2,082 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 11,137 |
| Messages: | 947,668 |