Isn’t it strange how cult leaders always like to adorn their weird groups with a respectable main-stream purpose.
The Reverend Moon claimed his brainwashing cult was a religion. Jones claimed his cult was a new and successful style of living until the Jonestown massacre.
Recently we have had an offshoot of the mormon religion led by Warren Jeffs who claimed he was doing gods work until it was realised he and all his grubby old mates were producing children from young girls.
Winston Peters simply calls his cult a political party. MMP has enabled the likes of Jim Anderton to call himself a political party and therefore receive large dollops of dough from you and I the humble tax-payers and to me – that is bad enough. But I certainly draw the line at a system that allows someone like Winston Peters to benefit from the government coffers as he does.
His so called political party is a joke. As the leader of this cult in 2005 he blathered to all and sundry that he was not interest in the “baubles of office.” Immediately after the election, when he saw he was in a position to bargain, all that went out the window.
Not only did he grab a ministerial post, with all its “baubles of office”, but he only took on the easy part of the job.
No Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade for Peters, he just took on foreign affairs. Clearly there was too much work in the trade part of the portfolio because that was put in the excellent hands of Phil Goff. Not even Aunty Helen would trust Winston in that important area.
And now Winston Peters asks us to believe he never knew that $100,000 had been dumped in to his legal fees account. I don’t know about you, but I find that absolutely impossible to believe.
By his own admission, Peters is not a wealthy man. You can’t tell me, that any man of modest means who has racked up huge legal fees on a fruitless mission to heal a bruised ego, would not know when someone dumped one hundred grand into the kitty. And if, in the very slightest chance that your solicitor did receive the money and not tell you, wouldn’t you sack him forthwith.
Peter’s solicitor admitted on TV that if the large donation had not been received, then Peters was liable for the shortfall in fees. Does that mean Peters had a pecuniary interest in the donation? And for that solicitor to appear on TV and suggest that he acted in a way that he had been taught in the 1980’s – well its’ just laughable. Doesn’t he realise there have been substantial changes in MP’s disclosure rules since then.
Frankly, even those poor sycophantic souls who have continued to support the Winston Peters cult, must now see the error their ways.
Related posts:
Recent Comments