Wednesday, 22 March 2006

Parker politics

Q: What's the definition of a good lawyer?
A: One who doesn't get caught.

Q: What do you call an honest lawyer?
A: An oxymoron.

Q: What's the definition of an honest lawyer?
A: One who resigns when he gets found out.

Jokes aside, what David Parker is alleged to have done looks pretty bloody trivial, doesn't it? Where was the damage, and to whom?

UPDATE: Attempts to answer the substantive question, "Where was the damage, and to whom?" have been made at DPF's 'Kiwiblog,' and Russell Brown's 'Hard News.'

LINKS: Parker withdraws from other posts - NBR
Where was the damage? - DPF, Kiwiblog
Gone by lunchtime - Russell Brown, Hard News

TAGS: Politics-NZ


  1. Perhaps, Peter, but it was eye-watering hypocrisy that pissed me off more than the offense itself.

    Just you try running the "it was a teeny, tiny 'technical' error that hurt nobody, and it's this level of scrutiny that prevents good people from starting businesses" defence with the IRD, and see how much sympathy you get in Helengrad. I think the regulatory libertarianism on the Labour Party front benches will be gone by lunchtime...

  2. Damn right Craig. It is not "one law for Labour MP's and one law for the rest of us". And I hope we all agree the A.G. should be a shining example of strict observance of the law, not just another dodgy guy who can't be bothered following proper procedures designed to protect the rights of minority shareholders.

    If I filed similarly false returns for five years (and up to nine years) to the Companies Office and was caught, I'd expect to have my arse kicked black and blue. Which may still happen to Parker.

  3. This issue exposes the blogger/blog reader demographic more than just about anything.

    I've put this issue to a few corporate types today - who wouldn't know a blog if they ran over it - and the answer is either

    -everyone does it
    -ask someone who gives a rat's arse
    -it's a technicality
    -who gives a shit

    This is why the blogging kingdom doesn't move and shake, but 'waddles and twitches' as Dennis said. No one cares except political junkies.

  4. Ruth:

    With all due respect, I wonder if your "corporate types" are the same folks who bitch and whine about being over-taxed, over-regulated and throttled by heavy-handed Nanny Statism but... (and there's always a but) they can't put their hands out fast enough for corporate welfare, a taste of the pork barrel, or lobby for anti-competitive regulations (as long as it only screws the competition)?

    Sometimes, I end up looking at the "business community" and mutter 'with friends like this - including the fairweather libertarians in Parliament -, liberty doesn't have any...'


Say what you mean, and mean what you say.
(Spam will be removed, unless it's been asked for.)