Thursday, August 04, 2005

Spin spins out

What seemed like an erudite and reasoned defence of the Diva showed up in comments to an earlier post today. Even we felt a little chastened. He was, it claimed, innocent in the eyes of any number of investigatory bodies, including:

3. The Local Govt Commission investigated and found that Laws had done nothing wrong.
Perhaps the onset of dementia had affected the Watchers? We're always willing to fact-check if challenged, so we did so. Not all the replies have come in yet, but we thought we'd share the first with you:
From : lgc-at-dia-dot-govt-dot-nz
Sent : Thursday, 4 August 2005 4:50:31 p.m.
To : lawswatch-at-hotmail-dot-com

Subject : Re: Report of investigation in certain matters concerning Napier City Council


Dear Laws Watch

Thank you for your inquiry.

The Local Government Commission has not conducted an investigation into Mr Laws' activities at any time.

Yours sincerely

Francis Ryan

for Chief Executive Officer


Wait... what's that we smell? Could it be some people are spinning so fast they're smouldering?

Comments on this post are now closed.

53 comments:

Anonymous said...

Actually they did. I researched it based upon the letter Cr Harrison sent me. A complaint was laid by a Cr Single and was dismissed.

Anonymous said...

In addition, to which I'm sure sure an auspicious body like the LGA would respond to an "enquiry" not an "inquiry". Either the LGA is illiterate (entirely possible) or LawsWatch made this eply up. Post it, please. Not that I don't believe you but a portion of my rates money goes to the LGA I assume and to have such Year 11 rejects in their midsy sorely worries me.

Anonymous said...

Hmmm.
What about the exonerations of Laws by;
1. The Audit Office
2. The Police
3. The Serious Fraud Office?

Anonymous said...

Unlike Tuffy Churton :)

Anonymous said...

Well done Laws Watch! Did I see you advertiseing in River City Press? Keep up the good work.

Laws Watch said...

What about the exonerations of Laws by;
1. The Audit Office
2. The Police
3. The Serious Fraud Office?


We are awaiting responses from these organisations and will post them when and if received. We only asked today, in response to the claims made by one commenter.

Either the LGA is illiterate (entirely possible) or LawsWatch made this eply up. Post it, please.

Is that the best spin you can put on a flat denial by the Local Government Commission that they ever looked into the matter?

We cannot "post" an email - if you think we "made it up" write to the LGC (not LGA) and ask them for it in a letter. Alternatively, email us at lawswatch-at-hotmail-dot-com and we'd be happy to hit "forward" to you (or anyone else) and you can check the email header. Or perhaps we've forged that too?

At the end of the day people will decide who to believe based on common sense. Some will opt for our version of events, others for the Diva's. One of us had to resign for dishonesty, and one of us did not. Take your pick.

Anonymous said...

Commentator. Not commenter.
LawsWatch, it's the English language.

Anonymous said...

Michael Laws is as upfront and ballsy about his beliefs and his actions.
LawsWatch exists in the shadows.
Wanganui chose last election which politics it prefers. The human being over the sideline sally with the chip on her shoulder.

Anonymous said...

I have a simple solution to the contrary claims posted here that Lawswatch might care to check out.
Go to the newspapers of the time - they must be at the library - and see if there are any clippings on whether Laws was cleared or not. I use libraries often to gather info for my work and you can ask local libraries (provided you know the dates) to search for you and post the results. Its very cheap.
I've done some research since I read the claim earlier tonight and the relevant newspapers in Hawkes Bay would be the Herald Tribune and the Daily Telegraph. They've merged since into Hawkes Bay Today.
I too am sceptical of the claims that Laws was cleared of anything.

Anonymous said...

Yeah and we only have Laws word for it that a) there was a defamation case and b) he won it. Where is the proof? Ask him LawsWatch. Proof of all this BS that he was ever cleared by anybody. The Chronicle didn't ask during the campaign did they??

Anonymous said...

Michael Laws was cleared by the Local Govt Commission in May 1996.

Anonymous said...

We only voted him in because of the flashy reading material Vision provided, They all looked SO good.

Anonymous said...

I'll ask it again. Show me one clipping, one story that Laws was ever cleared in 1996 by anybody and I'll eat my shorts. Fuck, I'll eat his.

Anonymous said...

I'm suspicious LawsWatch. How did you get a reply back from a government department (LGC) that quick?

Anonymous said...

Charles here - I'm with anon. I read all that crap during the campaign about the Diva being cleared but I saw no proof and no follow up. It was just another con. Hound the Chron to DEMAND that Laws front up.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Commentator. Not commenter.
LawsWatch, it's the English language...

Commenter (noun) one who comments.

"enquiry" not an "inquiry" ...
inquiry, a variant of enquiry

LGA
Local Government Act - not Local Government Commission

eply, midsy etc and all the above:

Symptoms of ignorance and stupidity to be found within the primitive sub-species known as Laws Lovers, not to mention Year 11 rejects.

Back to school for you, sunshine.

Laws Watch said...

We'll grant Laws this much - he's clearly capable of engendering blind - and we do mean blind - devotion among his followers.

Alright, we'll play your silly game. Here is a link to a screenshot of our inbox open to the email from the LGC. (Warning: 1024 x 768 pixel large image).

The offer to forward the email, direct from our inbox and complete with original headers, in reply to anyone who emails us, stands.

Anonymous said...

That's fantastic LawsWatch. But how DO you post letters etc to this blog? I have one that everyone will be most interested in. What's the procedure?

Anonymous said...

Hate to disappoint you LawsWatch but the LGC did conduct an investigation into Laws.
It was prompted by an official complaint by Councillor Kerry Single of the Napier City Council in April 1996.
How do I know? My partner worked for a HB newspaper and I followed the affair closely at the time. He thought Single was strange because he wrote everything in capitals all the time. I don't know what the result was but the LGC were drawn into it. It's possible that Francis Ryan wasnt working for them at the time or they dismiss all anonymous e-mail posters but Single set it all off.

Anonymous said...

"an auspicious body"

You missed this one, anon

Auspicious (adj) favourable or propitious, fortunate

perhaps the poor dope was trying to tell us the "LGA" is really ...

August (adj) dignified or imposing

I think this commenter should be sorely worried about his/her own stupidity. But then of course that is a requirement for Vision and their fellow travellers.

Back to school? Back to kindy would be more appropriate.

Laws Watch said...

Yeah and we only have Laws word for it that a) there was a defamation case and b) he won it.

Alas, NZLII doesn't seem to record the judgement, but, to the best of our recollection (at this stage of the evening) that in fact is true.

Which surprises the Watchers not one whit. Put it this way... knowing both parties to this action as we do, we forlornly hoped no one would win.

Laws Watch said...

ut how DO you post letters etc to this blog? I have one that everyone will be most interested in. What's the procedure?

You can email it to us at lawswatch-at-hotmail-dot-com and we will post it for you. Alternatively, if you know how to code HTML in your comments, you can upload an image anonymously to Imageshack then post the link here.

Anonymous said...

Ok enough already!
We can slag off Laws & his lot for as long as we like, feel better for 5 minutes & then loathe ourselves for spending so much time on nothing. It's like solo sex.
We need to cobstruct an alternative.
People who can & would win in 2007. There are some candidates we should forget about straight away. Don't put up losers like M-Anyon, Steve Palmer or Rob Vinsen because they're tried & failed. Even John Martin falls into that category.
Let's think - fresh, sympathetic (to the arts), credible and popular. Those are the four criteria if we're going to kick out Vision and get the council that Wanganui needs.
First nomination?

Anonymous said...

Ok, I've got one.
Emma's partner David Murray.

Anonymous said...

Good morning. Simple answer to whether the mayor was cleared. Ask him to provide the evidence. Write to him.

Anonymous said...

Why should he have to answer to you tossers? I gave him his mandate at the last election along with the rest of the city. And he's doing exactly what he promised and that's a good thing for any pollie.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said, like a sad loser...
Why should he have to answer to you tossers?
7:07 AM

Because everyone else in office does. It's called accountability. In the final analysis Laws doesn't have to answer questions from any of his beloved media, but he does, doesn't he. Until we're sick to our stomachs with his crap.

Anonymous said...

It's called democracy, tosser.
Get used to it. It isnt going away.

Anonymous said...

Here is the accusation posed by lawsWatch. Our mayor was not "cleared" by the Local Government Commisson back in 1996 because ... there wasn't an investigation. Oh, how dreadful!
Who gives a proverbial what happened in 1996 apart from some Sarjeant junkies? We had an election in 2004 - the forces of reason won, the arties lost. Suck on that.

Anonymous said...

Reason? Go read "Voltaires Bastards" before you start hacking on about reason. Learn something, as opposed to sucking up propaganda like it's candy.

Anonymous said...

Someone, with malice, said:

We had an election in 2004 - the forces of reason won, the arties lost.

Vision Wanganui lied to the arts community to get our votes. Boy are you going to get a shock now we know the truth.

Anonymous said...

Rob Vinsen. there's OUR candidate if there's a by-election. Altho would he be stronger than Ross MA or David Murray? Emma Camden?

Anonymous said...

No sane "arty" voted vision last year. I didn't and neither did any Sarjeant extension supporter I know. Laws had already told us what he would do and he did it. Some of us believe him when he tells us that we're going to get the shaft!

Anonymous said...

well, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but some in the arts community were insane (or uninformed) enough to vote for Laws. One or two of them are very angry, so thay tell me.

Anonymous said...

I think Rob Vinsen (another Laws-labelled "unelectable") would be stronger than Murray or Mitchell Anyon, but that begs the question of how much David might raise his profile. Not to mention that he's a completely unknown quantity on the hustings.

Anonymous said...

Is Ross M-A a bit bruised after last year? is he electable? I think Rob Vinsen would be strong because he's been a councillor, got close to Horizons last year and has good commercial contacts.
But he's no arts lover - where was he on the sarjeant extension?

Anonymous said...

It would have to be 'one or two'.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
It would have to be 'one or two'.

10:07 AM

lol I sincerely hope so.

Matt Dutton said...

Any "arts" candidate has to have broad knowledge and credibility on a range of issues. Sue Pepperell told me I'd be a good Councillor because I have a relatively broad knowledge base to draw on. Now, before I have to set Your Mother on you, I'm not saying she's right about me, but she certainly has a point about the qualities required in the job.

onlytwin said...

get a life people

Anonymous said...

Ross has pooed in his nest with his ongoing loose unit letters to the paper

Anonymous said...

onlytwin said...
get a life people

10:27 AM

and also, on his own blog, said...

"Sitting around the flat in C street late one night, everyone shit faced and chilling out..."

And we need a life? uh huh.

Anonymous said...

And really, people, John Martin would be a perfect choice of candidate: he got lots of votes for the mayoralty, and many consider it to have been a tactical mistake for him not to simultaneously run for Council. He has full respect from pretty much the whole community. Even Laws has had relatively nice things to say about him. He has an existing profile, which is arts friendly but not to the extent of all else, and he loves Wanganui.

Anonymous said...

Martin isnt strong enough to confront Laws. Vinsen is. so is M-anyon.

Anonymous said...

Martin would have beaten Laws if Chas hadn't stood. You over-estimate the size of Lawsmob.

Anonymous said...

John Martin is Mr Bland. He'll go with the flow. Give me a hellraiser like Ross. The other thing is that Martin will be learning whereas Mitchell-anyon has been there, knows the system and will resist from day one. Martin will plod.

Anonymous said...

Ross might be a good candidate to replace GK, for that reason, but as mayor? Erm, no.

If he ran as a purely Fucklaws candidate he'd romp home.

Anonymous said...

Bullshit. Laws got 43% Martin 27% Poynter 20%. There is no proof that Poynter's votes would ALL have gone to Martin. Bullock and Stevens would have picked up a few and so would Laws.

Anonymous said...

yeah i'm talking Ross for council by-election as the F***Laws candidate. He'd piss in.

Anonymous said...

In a two-way race, Laws would have had to debate on the issues, and Martin would have buried him.

Anonymous said...

Back to GK: do you suppose that Lawsmob will really try and pretend he can live & work in Wellington and still be a Wanganui District Councillor? I'm sure it's legal, but it would demonstrate such contempt for Wanganui that even Laws might be unable to spin it. Imagine the scenario at Guyton Street:

Michael: But Sean, what if I said...
Sean: No.
Michael: But Sean, let's put it this way...

You can hardly blame GK for wanting to jump: the talented ones always go first.

Anonymous said...

Hey, Johnny Maslin, better get your ass into gear before you start to look like Laws' poodle. The story's out. When were you planning to cover it?

Anonymous said...

One thing Russell Brown is over-kind to Laws on: "he resigned". Laws repeats this every chance he gets, implying that it was voluntary, but it's not true: Winston Peters forced him to.

Spin Mickey spin.