Does Carter have pictures?
In various of Adam’s past lives, a common saying when a colleague who committed major stuff-ups appeared to carry on relatively unscathed, was to say ‘He/She must have pictures’ of someone in ultimate authority i.e. some form of hold that prevented the retribution wreaked on others being wreaked on them.
Adam was reminded of this when he read that the egregious, serial trougher Chris Carter who appears to express littel if any regret for his actions and who has not per some accounts not repaid, as yet, monies which he should have repaid – retained a spokesperson position and did not suffer a severe ranking demotion.
So just why should Carter appear to do better than Shane Jones, who at least fessed up and whose overall spending at the trough was far less. Who is protecting Carter and why?
Trackbacks
- Tweets that mention Does Carter have pictures? « The Inquiring Mind -- Topsy.com
- Who’s sorry now? « Homepaddock
Comments are closed.
INV II, you’ve nailed it completely. It goes to the question of who wields the real power in Liarbore these days. Here’s a hint … it ain’t Fool Goof. The Rainbow faction runs Liarbore. That’s why Jones got a hiding for doing not much more than getting you & I to pay for one off the wrist while Carter, whose sins are far more egregious, gets off (‘scuse the pun) with a pointy finger and a not-too-stern telling off. Of course, the invoice that Barnsley has posted may well be evidence of actual fraud (as opposed to moral rectitude), so if Mr Plod can wrest himself away from WhaleOil’s bedroom window for long enough to investigate, it may well be that the Rainbow Faction cannot protect Koru Club. We’ll see. As far as spectator sports go, this is right up there with watching Ozzie getting smashed by the Krauts!
It’s elementary, my dear Adam. Phil Goff is reluctant to sanction Chris Carter because Chris Carter is gay! It’s the only explanation that makes sense, given Carter’s use of the “gay card” as a defence.
BTW, Barnsley Bill has an image over at No Minister of a rental car paid for at Waiheke Island on Carter’s card, in the name of Peter Kaiser. Whether or not Carter may have repaid that is irrelevant; that is a blatant breach of Minsiterial Services rules.
Carter actually had a good explanation for that: he was entitled to a rental car. When his partner is with him, and they’re driving an unfamiliar car, they prefer that Peter do the driving. The car hire has to be in the name of the driver, and having both their names as drivers would have been more expensive (insurance for two drivers). And given that he wouldn’t be driving, and Peter would be doing the job of Chauffeur at no expense to the taxpayer – that would have been a waste of money. It wasn’t a rental for Peter, it was a rental for Carter, with Kaiser doing the driving.
But on Waiheke, where they had a bach?
JC
But the real question is this Graeme; was Carter undertaking ministerial business on Waiheke, or was he just having a weekend at his holiday home? If it is the latter, it is misuse of his credit card. Oh, and 6/7 October 2007 was a Saturday/Sunday.