Lord Lucan is alive, well, and exerting political influence in New Zealand

Ian Wishart’s Investigate Magazine reports:

Investigate has learned that the 7th Earl of Lucan, Richard John Bingham, did not commit suicide after murdering his children’s nanny, Sandra Rivett, in 1974. Instead, Lucan fled to New Zealand.

Lucan learned that a New Zealander, Donald Thomas Brash, who had in 1961 attained a Masters’ degree in economics with a thesis arguing that foreign investment damaged a country’s economic development and had been working overseas for the World Bank, had returned to New Zealand.  Brash had become General Manager of Broadbank Corporation, a merchant bank.

7th Earl of Lucan - 2011

7th Earl of Lucan - 1974

With his considerable wealth, Lucan was able to undergo plastic surgery to change his appearance and voice training to speak (almost) like a New Zealander.  Then came the masterstroke – Lucan, who by now through his plastic surgery looked almost identical to Donald Thomas Brash, murdered Brash, assumed his identity, and sought to commence a political career in New Zealand.

Lucan, under his assumed identity, unsuccessfully stood for the New Zealand National Party in the East Coast Bays electorate in 1978 and 1981. However, his new life took an upturn in 1982, when he became managing director of the New Zealand Kiwifruit Authority, and in 1986 he became general manager of Trust Bank.

In 1988 Lucan conned New Zealand’s Labour Party into appointing him Governor of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, a position he held for 14 years.  He re-entered politics under his Donald Thomas Brash identity in 2002, and assumed the National Party’s leadership in 2003.  However, his political ineptitude resulted in him losing the 2005 election which most opinion polls predicted National would win.  Following a sex scandal, Lucan resigned the National Party leadership in 2006.

Lucan is currently attempting a political comeback with a bizarre and confused mix of economic libertarians and social authoritarians in the ACT Party, having murdered ACT’s former Leader, Rodney Hide.

Confidential sources have told Investigate that the body of the real Donald Thomas Brash was weighted with concrete blocks and dumped in Auckland’s Western Springs pond, where it has likely been consumed by eels.

Investigate is also confidentially informed that a young man by the name of David Garrett assisted Lucan in the disposal of the body.

The Bully State

The New Zealand Herald reports:

A group representing 30 officers who have worked for a privately run prison made a submission this week to Parliament’s law and order select committee, which is considering legislation to enable private operators to run jails.

After Bart Birch, Uaea Leavasa and Satish Prasad criticised how Auckland Central Remand Prison was run under private contractor GEO between 2000 and 2005, Mr Garrett weighed in.

“You say that you don’t want to go back to working in this environment – to the private [sector]. You’d be aware that given your submission here, you wouldn’t get offered a job anyway, would you?

Now, Parliament has rules about this sort of conduct by Members – notably Standing Orders 400 and 401 relating to Contempt of the House:

401 Examples of Contempt
Without limiting the generality of Standing Order 400, the House may treat as a contempt any of the following:

(t) intimidating, preventing or hindering, a witness from giving evidence, or giving evidence in full, to the House or a committee:

It will be interesting to see if any MP makes a formal complaint about Garrett’s conduct. I hope one does, because this is an extremely bad look by Garrett. Witnesses before Select Committees should feel free to give whatever evidence they choose without the fear of reprisals that Garrett’s comment seemed to imply.

On top of Minister Paula Bennett’s releasing personal information to intimidate two women who had the temerity to publicly criticise welfare benefit policy, it is starting to look very much like the “nanny state” has replaced by the “bully state”.

Sir Robert Muldoon would be proud.

How many strikes does he get?

Act MP David Garrett (aka The Garotte) seems to have survived well beyond the three strikes he promotes.

Today he is reported as making sexually inappropriate comments to a female Act Parliamentary staffer.

That is on top of another incident, related to me a couple of weeks ago by a Green Party Parliamentary Service staffer. The staff member reports that he had just arrived at Parliament carrying a suitcase with a Wellington airport destination tag still attached. The staff member advises me he and Garrett shared a lift from the ground floor of Bowen House, and Garrett, whom he had never spoken with before, out of the blue commented:

You wouldn’t have got that on as cabin baggage, would you. Because you’re not a Polynesian who can get away with pretending to not speak English!

How many strikes does this guy Garrett get?

  • Drunkenly equating homosexuals with paedophiles on Eye to Eye.
  • Promoting a Bill that the Attorney General considers to be in breach of the Bill of Rights Act.
  • Having the same Bill criticised by the United Nations Human Rights Council as likely to violate two human rights conventions.
  • Caught out lying in his claim that 77 lives would have been saved if his Three Strikes Bill had been in force. Official information responses from the Corrections Department reveal there would have been none.
  • Racist comments to a Green Party staffer.
  • Sexual harrassment of an Act Party Staffer.

He’s got at least 6 strikes now. So come on Rodney – how come you are just saying you “hoped the incident would not lead to the end of Garrett’s career as a member of Parliament.”?

Isn’t it time to get rid of this guy?

Strike three, and out!

Strike 1

Attorney-General Chris Finlayson reports that ACT MP David Garrotte‘s Three Strikes Bill has an apparent inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Right’s Act.

Strike 2

Garrotte’s Three Strikes Bill criticied by the United Nations Human Rights Council as likely to violate two human rights conventions.

Strike 3

Garrotte caught out lying in his claim that 77 lives would have been saved if his Three Strikes Bill had been in force. Official information responses from the Corrections Department reveal there would have been none.

Having copped his third strike on the Bill, David Garrett should withdraw it and resign from Parliament.

But just for good measure, as Tane at The Standard has just pointed out, the Garrotte has also now been caught out lying to his own supporters.

Time to go, David.

I would hate to be Chris Finlayson

Attorney General Chris Finlayson is one of the National Party Ministers whom I think is generally a nice guy. He’s not a nasty far right ideologue, and he deals with issues pragmatically and fairly on the basis of his considerable experience as a senior barrister.

So he must have been squirming yesterday, when National rammed a Bill through Parliament that, in his capacity as Attorney General, he opposed.

Finlayson’s report to Parliament as Attorney General on the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill is extraordianarily condemnatory of a Bill promoted by his own Party. He states:

… I conclude the new power to impose residential restrictions after 12 months also raises apparent inconsistencies with s 22 Bill of Rights Act as authorising arbitrary detention.

It is not settled whether justification under s 5 is available for either s 22 or s 26. However, it is not necessary to determine that point here, because the apparent objectives of this Bll could be determined in a rights consistent manner.

It would appear to be possible for the imposition of restrictions amounting to long term detention to be achieved in a rights consistent way through the use of the preventive detention regime or through amendment to the Sentencing Act 2003 to allow courts to impose an extended parole period as part of the sentence following conviction for specific offending. This is broadly the scheme that was adopted in Canada.

That this Bill’s objectives could be achieved without contravening the right against arbitrary detention or double jeopardy does not provide justification for these inconsistencies. The state should not detain offenders solely on the basis of preventing future offending, nor should it punish offenders twice for the same offence.

But, despite their own Attorney General’s concerns, the Government rushed this Bill through under urgency and did not even disclose those concerns to other political parties. Keith Locke was rightly concerned.

Now, don’t get me wrong – I believe serious sex offenders should be locked up until the Parole Board is convinced they are not longer a threat.

But I do not think introducing arbitrary detention and double jeopardy into our legal system is the way to go about it in a fair and democratic society, and nor does a senior Cabinet Minister Chris Finlayson.

But he was over-ridden, and the Bill pushed through all stages in an hour under urgency, with no opportunity for Select Committe submissions and hearings. Finlayson must be spewing!

I wonder how long someone with the integrity of Chris Finlayson will be able to tolerate being a senior Minister in this Government. Another Bill will be coming back to the House soon – ACT MP David Garrett’s Three Strikes Bill. Finalyson has already reported that this too is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act (on the basis of disproportionately severe sentencting). It will be interesting to see what he does if the Government endorse it against his opinion.

There have always been scumbags in Parliament who will sacrifice principle to personal aggrandisement, but I don’t count Finlayson among them. For a start, he could earn a lot more outside Government or Parliament than in it, and I also believe he is someone who stands by his principles and has the well-being of all humanity at heart.

So how long will he tolerate being over-ridden by those in the National Party with a desire to appease David Garrett and his redneck bigoted constituency?

Greens welcome Winston on board

Green Co-Leader Dr Russel Norman today welcomed Winston Peters’ decision to join the Green Party, saying it will help the Greens to broaden their voter support base.

“Over four percent of voters at the last election voted for New Zealand First,” Dr Norman said. “I am confident that a large proportion of those voters will now give their support to the Greens. It is an unexpected and very real bonus for us, and may finally give us the chance to break through 10%.

“The Greens have never managed to appeal to the redneck vote,” said Dr Norman. “David Garrett has proven with ACT just how electorally valuable having a drunken bigot among the senior ranks of a political party can be. Winston will now be able to perform a similar role for us.”

The Greens are also considering changing their Constitution so Peters can succeed Jeanette Fitzsimons as Co-Leader when she steps down at the Party’s Annual General Meeting on Queen’s Birthday weekend.

“Having two male Co-Leaders would help dispel the perception that we are too pro-feminist. We’re never going to get the blokes’ votes with that image,” Dr Norman said.

“Of course Winston would be Co-Leader outside Parliament like I was when I was first elected. But he has immense expertise in fundraising and managing electoral donations and already has a strong relationship with the media, so working as Co-Leader outside Parliament should be easier for him than it was for me.”

Three strikes and you’re garrotted

An interview with ACT Party Law and Order spokesperson David Garrotte


Toad: David, for many people, you first came to public attention when you appeared drunk on Eye to Eye.

Garrotte: Yeah, I was pretty pissed. I’d been on it all afternoon.

Toad: And you equated homosexuals with paedophiles on Eye to Eye. Are you homophobic?

Garrotte: Hell, no! I just don’t like poofters – or any other perverts or deviants for that matter.

Toad: Do you regret that comment on Eye to Eye?

Garrotte: Well, my position on the ACT list was announced after all the other candidates. That comment may have had something to do with that. But I got elected in the end, so I guess not.

Toad: Deborah Coddington said you told her on the show that your brother hates her. Is that true?

Garrotte: Yeah, it is. He does. I might have said it stone cold sober. I call a spade a spade, you know.

Toad: Some people find that a bit difficult to cope with. Did you find it difficult employing the right staff when you got into Parliament?

Garrotte: Hell no. I just asked the applicants if they thought William Bell should have got a bullet. Oh, and I asked the women if they were feminists. That sorted them out.

Toad: When the Attorney General’s report on your Three Strikes Bill came out, you were reported as saying “We’ve got too hung up on people’s rights.” Do you think there is such a thing as fundamental human rights?

Garrotte: Yeah, for law-abiding mainstream New Zealanders there is. But not for crims, boongas, queers, lezzos, prostitutes, and assorted left-wing scum. At least we don’t have too many Jews and Gyppos here – they are always carrying on about their rights. Anyway, that report was written by some oik in the Crown Law Office, so I don’t really care what it said.

Toad: With respect, David, Attorney General Chris Finlayson has confirmed that he doesn’t just sign off on Crown Law opinions, but considers them substantively himself.

Garrotte: Well, he’s a pansy and a wishy-washy liberal anyway, so what would you expect. I’m surprised he’s not in the Green Party.

Toad: And your Bill has also been criticised by the United Nations Human Rights Council as likely to violate two human rights conventions. Are you concerned about that?

Garrotte: Hell no! That Committee is full of wogs from places like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. What the hell would they know about human rights? There’s probably even a terrorist or two on it.

Toad: It’s been suggested that the increased prison muster resulting from your Three Strikes Bill may result in increased instance of prison assaults and rapes because many prisoners will be required to double-bunk. Are you concerned about that?

Garrottte: Not at all. Those low-life scum don’t have any rights. In fact a good rectal rogering or two in prison might make some of them think twice before committing a crime next time.

Toad: So you’re not concerned that some criminals could face disproportionately severe punishment on the third strike?

Garrotte: Not at all. Personally, I’d like to see them garrotted on the third strike, but the National Party has so many wish-washy liberal types that I know I’d never get that through.

Dissent in the Government ranks

Subtitle: Well, who’s an oik then?

ACT Party resident bigot David Garrett has been in the news recently, defending his Three Strikes Bill against Attorney General Chris Finlayson’s report that it is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in that it provides for disproportionately severe punishment.

Garrett came up with this little gem a couple of days ago.

“So what?”

“Alter the Bill of Rights Act. We’ve got too hung up on people’s rights.”

Mr Garrett, a former legal adviser to the Sensible Sentencing Trust, said the concerns were not Mr Finlayson’s personally but those of “some oik in Crown Law”.

Chris Finlayson, interviewed in this morning’s New Zealand Herald on his NZ Bill of Rights assessment, says:

Mr Finlayson, a leading lawyer before becoming an MP, said he was prepared to dissent from the advice he received.

“I don’t take the view that I’m some kind of automaton and just sign off on what is given to me. I will examine the matter carefully.”

Oops, big splatters of rotten egg all over Garrett then – the Attorney General in his own Government is an oik!

David GarrettBy the way, has anyone else noticed the resemblence, physical and otherwise, between David Garrett and the late Enoch Powell?Enoch Powell

Hat tip: The Standard