< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://sirhumphreys.com" > Sir Humphrey's: Helen Clark out of touch


SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved

Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.

The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.

Monday, October 17, 2005

Helen Clark out of touch

Heard Paul Holmes in his regular slot this morning interviewing Helen Clark. Conversation went like this:

HOLMES: "Prime Minister, there is the case of the four men who were acquitted in just three hours after the SFO spent four years prosecuting them. Their lives have been ruined and their reputations highly damaged. The jury felt so concerned that they embraced the men, all good honest men who have given a lot to the community, after the trial. Should the SFO be held to account?"

CLARK: "I really have no idea what you are talking about. I don't know about the case you are referring so can't possibly comment".

Aye? Where has she been? Timbuktoo?

Posted by Gooner | 10/17/2005 08:43:00 AM


Blogger Murray said...

The Minister for Full of Crap speaks once more.

She see's nothing, hears nothing, knows nothing. She's either not fit to do the job because she's completely cluesless or she's a bloody liar.

Hmm which one is it do you think?

Another fine example of why our electorial system needs a bloody good overhaul.

10/17/2005 09:43:00 AM  
Blogger Gooner said...

All of the above.

10/17/2005 10:02:00 AM  
Blogger noizy said...

"...because she's completely cluesless..."

As opposed to, say, Don Brash?

10/17/2005 10:12:00 AM  
Anonymous tincanman said...

Oh come on James, you've completely missed the point here. Every man and his dog knows about these investigations and the subsequent court case and the Prime Minister of this country has no clue. Not even one. The Prime Minister of New Zealand, who doesn't read the papers? Hard to believe, isn't it?

I can bet you Don Brash knew about this.

10/17/2005 10:21:00 AM  
Anonymous spam said...

Maybe this is simply a variant on the "I haven't been briefed about that" - like the skyhawk sale that cabinet signed-off on but she didn't know about.

10/17/2005 11:07:00 AM  
Anonymous Bentley Strange said...

Whereas I, for one, knowing just a little bit more of the background, am totally amazed that the jury could possibly find the defendants innocent. Some kind of sympathy vote or possibly a belief that it was a GOOD CAUSE ? Strange things happen.

10/17/2005 11:47:00 AM  
Blogger Gooner said...

Juries are odd creatures. But when you get 12 saying the same thing in less than 3 hours you gotta ask questions.

10/17/2005 12:31:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The SFO have a bad batting average They have lost in every Court up and including the Privy Council Given they dont take on a case unless they think they have at least an 85% chance it even worse.They lack the intellectual horsepower of the defence lawyers they come up against.Taken at face value we dont have any whire callar crime in NZ And if you beleve that you also must believe in the Easter Bunny Father Xmas the Tooth Fairy etc etc

10/17/2005 01:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Everything I have read about this still looks dirty though.

How much commission can you take for fundraising for a charity, or doing good work, and when does it reach Imelda Marcos or papa doc duvalier proportions.

Sure these guys gave some money to the charitable trusts, but they seem to have given a lot to themselves also.


10/18/2005 10:55:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home