Respecting Winston Peters



After a long absence Lord Richard Griffin spoke from his "thrown" to inform us that Winston Peters deserves more respect.



Well he didn't, the sub-editor of Stuff did but the opinion piece thereafter was accurate to the headline as Lord Griffin made a sterling attempt to stick up for his old mate.  

Winston Peters himself has not asked political commentators and bloggers to respect him more, for if you have to ask for respect you do not deserve it.  In the very same way if you have to ask people to trust you, they should not.  I doubt Winston Peters cares what anyone thinks of him who will never vote for him.

Griffin himself had a long and illustrious career as life member of the Gallery but also not too briefly as man servant protecting easily the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime (and I am counting ALL the Labour ones here) James Brendan Bolger.  Legends dark have it that in foreign shores, Griffin was often mistaken for the PM such was the diminished gravitas of James Bolger in his presence

Griffin has transported himself back from the giant Tardis he was moving in, only to learn that political commentators and with it commentary has evolved and nowadays opinion is just as worthy from members of the public as bloggers, guests on talk radio or junior Gallery colleagues as it is the institutionalised boilers in the Gallery.  Far from the good old days where he could frown at errant colleagues, we get to choose opinion from one side and read more from another to shock horror, form our own views that do not need a tick from someone above them in imaginary status.  

Winston Peters knows this all too well and found himself some youthful genius expert advisors in the area who Griffin would spit out his whiskey to think are in the least bit influential on Making, let alone Keeping Winston Peters "Great". 

After telling us all that we are naughty children and shouldn't be daring to comment on a judge only proceedings like it will influence his decision, Griffin then did just that and gave us his insights as he, like anyone is entitled to do.  Bloody marvellous. Tripping on his own piousness, Griffin gloriously omits to acknowledge his former profession deeply wallowed and smeared themselves in the glory of the political muck and repeated the large breach of Peters' privacy absolutely everywhere without any concern for morals, ethics or his privacy.  They showed his privacy zero respect.

They are now covering that up, as they can, in front of the courts by refusing to say who specifically told them of said muck.  That to the uninitiated is the largest mockery out.  The media forced everyone to play a frightfully expensive game of Whodunnit/whack a mole for this week of the largely irrelevant evidence to date, leading into the appearance of the public servants and the real issues.  But carry on then, yes bloggers and "amateurs" are the real problem. Nothing to do with the ethics and morals of New Zealand journalists yet again interfering around election time, gayly republishing often illegally obtained private information of others as they all excitedly gun to interfere in the democratic process. No, nothing at all.   Maybe like Sir Robert Jones, Lord Griffin could start his own blog.  After all if it is good enough for an esteemed and respected Knight in Sir Robert Jones, it is good enough for those of lower rank and file surely?

I can play along nicely with the headline and list all the positive things I have published as a blogger this week about Winston Raymond Peters.  I encourage other bloggers to do likewise and show the love the Stuff site wish us to, even the current enfant terrible Tim Murphy from that little niche blog called Newsroom.

- Agreed it was outrageous and a breach of privacy to have the media run the Super stuff up.
- Called him a lawyer, senior politician, Deputy PM and esteemed member of the community.
- Mentioned he has a lot of pride.
- Noted his negotiation talents of screwing over Labour for a great deal,
- Praised his superior intellectual ability compared to less able 65 year olds.
- Confirmed I never thought for one second he committed an actual fraud.
- Praised how striking and immaculately groomed his Partner is.
- Praised how quick he is in deliver of one-liners.
- Noted that his friendship with Barry Soper is well known.
- Pointed out that no one wished to appear as a witness in this including Soper.
- Said that the privacy breach was a very serious legal matter.
- Praised his ability to spin anything positively for him.
- Agreed Anne Tolley had breached his privacy speaking to her husband and sister.
- Complimented the work of his Barrister.
- Noted politics played out in a courtroom stunk so much I had pity for the Judge not used to such matters appearing before him.
- Concluded he was a Winner of the week.

Friends and colleagues of mine will confirm that is an unusual amount of respect shown by me, a) for me anytime and b) for someone who thinks the man and his Party is an ever-lasting stain on the fabric of democracy, holding far too much power in any government for his miserable percentage of the vote.


Comments

  1. I notice Barry Soper objected to Newsroom recording the fact that after he (Soper) left the witness box, he went straight to the back of the courtroom and immediately sat down next to Winston Peters. So, did it happen or not? And if it’s a fact, what objection could a journalist of all people have to it bing published? Hoist by his own petard.

    And we’re just meant to accept Soper’s cavalier dismissal of “preposterous” the idea that Peters and Soper have a close relationship that means that Peters occasionally/often or always uses Soper? Or that Soper occasionally/usually or always uses Peters? You know, like politicians and journalists have been doing to one another in mutual relationship of mercenary need and contempt since...forever?

    Methinks the reporter doth protest too much. Because Soper was subpoenaed and that could never be used as a subterfuge for quid pro quo testimony, could it?!

    But, hey, if Barry says its “preposterous!” it must be so. I look forward to him in his role as a watchdog for the public’s good adopting the same uncritical acceptance of the “preposterous!” rebuttal/refutation next time he interviews a potentially compromised politician, executive or similar responsible authority.

    And they wonder why MSM journalism is held in such wide contempt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All the time Soper saying it was his “view” National leaked it when he then gave testimony someone from National “did” leak it to him. But he was sworn to secrecy because of some archaic convention we allow journalists to freely spread rumour and innuendo people are too chicken shit to spread themselves! Exhausting.

      Delete
  2. It's to Nationals credit that they refused to get into bed with that...Trio of trash.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, well, when National was in office, the health system was basically abandoned, & the minister concerned was a doctor who used to practice in Otara, & funny how he didn't stick around after.
      National are the trash, so stick that in your pipe & smoke it, if you agree with S Bridges that beneficiaries shouldn't be allowed to travel, then you're like a German who voted for Hitler, because that what he did to his citizens, denied them the civil right of unimpeded travel.

      Delete
    2. Gun confiscation anyone?

      Ever heard of Godwins law?

      Thought not.

      Delete
  3. Winston sold out to Labour who is in bed with the Greens!
    He deserves no respect what so ever!
    National needs to come out and state that they will only do a deal with NZF on their own terms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good on you Winston for fighting for your rights. Tolley and Bennett broke the law, Tolley said on TV news that she wished that she never saw those leaked private documents.For most of you diehard national supporters you don't give a shit if they broke the law, how pathetic is that. You don't like Winston because he's Maori and a clever one at that.So l say Tolley and Bennett should be sacked for leaving private and personal information to the media

      Delete
    2. Tolley did breach his privacy by telling her husband and sister. I’ve written about that. But that’s not worth $450k.

      It’s up to the judge to decide whether Bennett did as nothing so far suggests she has.

      No evidence so far has conclusively shown either individual leaked to the media.

      And hello your “clever Maori” actually pre-emptively struck himself by releasing details to the media before they ran a story Barry Soper said he wouldn’t run as he couldn’t stand up the rumours, details now proven actually were false.

      Delete
    3. Your 'clever maori' is not a lawyer.

      Peters trained as a lawyer but does not hold a practicing certificate therefore, he is just a 'clever maori' with an ammout of legal knowledge and not a charlatan or a fraudster

      Delete
    4. Congratulations on being the first to confront me about that regarding. Points off though for failing to recognise my deep sense of sarcasm. :)

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Hendy Wrong - Yet Again - The Emperor Is Wearing No Clothes

Grant Robertson Attempts To Gaslight Peter Williams