Saturday, October 19, 2013


between Len Brown and Commodore Kevin Keat, RNZN.      Yesterday Keat was found guilty at Courts Martial of five charges relating to an affair he had with a civilian employee.   You can read about it here

Keat will be sentenced shortly.   The maximum punishment he could face is two years in the slammer.   That won't happen.    My pick is that he will be demoted in rank to Navy Captain and given an administrative discharge from the service.

So, back to the title of this post .... I can't.


gravedodger said...

Unless it is about the uniform.
No info on 'bighead powered by littlehead' wearing the mayoral chains while cheating on his ill missus.

Noel said...

There is blindingly obvious difference.
Brown cannot be charged under the Armed Forces Discipline Act.

The Veteran said...

Noel ... obliviously, but that's not what I was referring to ... the act dear boy, the act, and my reading of the Council Code of Conduct suggests Brown infringed against that in the same way as Keat has been judged as infringing against the Armed forces Discipline Act.

But I can understand how it is that Keat will pay a far higher price ... after all he's not a Labour Party politician with the media running interference for him.

Noel said...

I'm not sure that I understand.
The council CoC is underpinned by the
Local Authority Act 1968
LGOUIMA Act 1978
Securities Commission Act 1910
Crimes Act 1961
Securities Act 1978.
Just what legislation is his transgression under?

Watcher said...

The Veteran said

"my reading of the Council Code of Conduct suggests Brown infringed"

That's not supported by other more knowledgeable observers.

"University of Auckland local government law expert Ken Palmer said Mr Brown had not broken any laws, and he did not believe he had breached the Auckland Council code of conduct."

The Veteran said...

With great respect to Noel and to Watcher this is a bit like shooting ducks in a barrel.

For Noel. Clauses 14 to 16 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 require members of a local authority to .... "comply with a Code of Conduct".

For both. Auckland City has a Code of Conduct and I refer you to Clause 5.4 of the Code reproduced below ...

"Members must declare any private interests or personal benefits relating to their public duties and take steps to resolve any conflicts of interest in such a way that protects the public interest. This means fully disclosing actual or potential conflicts of interest; avoiding any financial or other obligation to any individual or organisation that might reasonably be thought to influence them in the performance of their duties".

Question ... might not the fact the Brown put himself up as a referee for Chuang when she applied for a Council job when he was f**k**g her as his mistress be considered as a failure to 'fully disclose an actual conflict of interest' or are you of the opinion that the Code is not worth the paper it's written on?

Brown is not the first nor will he be the politician to be caught with his pants down. But when you use your position of authority to promote the career of the person with whom you are having an adulterous affair within your own organisation then by any standard that is wrong and he should go.

Watcher said...

Veteran you appear to be aggrieved by this.
Time for your to do a Graham McGready and see if your opinion is supported by the courts.

The Veteran said...

Watcher ... not aggrieved, just wondering how so called experts like your quoted Ken Palmer can offer such an opinion.

Methinks it might be a case of not being able to see the wood for the leaves or perhaps, just perhaps, my colleague Nick K is right and certain people are running interference for Saint Len.

Note you didn't address my point.


Watcher said...

A breach of Auckland Council Code of Conduct is NOT an offence under the Local Government Act 2002.

The Veteran said...

Watcher ... agreed but it could be an offence under the Local Authority (Members' Interests) Act 1968 which regulates situations where a member's personal interests impinge. or could be seen as impinging, on their duties as an elected member.

So pray tell how, in your lexicon, does a Mayor who acts as a referee for his mistress in applying for a Council job stack up against this?

Watcher said...

The Veterans said
"... it COULD be an offence under the Local Authority (Members' Interests) Act 1968"

The only way we are both going to know the answer to that is if it's tested in Court.

Off you go Veteran McGready.

The Veteran said...

Watcher ... it would be difficult for me to argue that I had 'standing'. Don't reside in Auckland.

Have a look what happened to Cdre Keat today. The JA said he (Keat) has acted deceitfully and that higher rank comes with accountably and the need for trust with the NZDF.

Should not the Mayor of our largest city be held to that high standard also?

Excuses, excuses, always excuses.
Banks committed for trial and stands down (unlike Phillip Field). And now Brown is being portrayed by some as the victim. Strange set of morals in play from the left side of politics.

The Veteran said...

Watcher ... further to the above and I see the scope of the Auckland Council inquiry has been widened to look at this very issue.

I predict that Brown will be found to have acted "unwisely" and will be slapped on the hand with a wet bus ticket because Saint Len is a Saint and Saints get a second chance ... unlike senior naval officers.

Watcher said...

"I predict that Brown will be found to have acted "unwisely" and will be slapped on the hand with a wet bus ticket "


"Keat will be sentenced shortly. The maximum punishment he could face is two years in the slammer. That won't happen. My pick is that he will be demoted in rank to Navy Captain and given an administrative discharge from the service."

So punishment for either will not be up to expectation.
Not an uncommon claim for murder cases these days.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

What a stupid comment!

Psycho Milt said...

Spot the difference

Hmm. Well, one's subject to military discipline and the other isn't. One's under the authority of superior officers, and the other isn't. One's the victim of a smear campaign by a sleazy tabloid journo scumbag, a right-wing blogger and a political hack, and the other isn't. There are probably others, but I've lost interest.

The Veteran said...

PM ... so the differing standards of account are of no concern to you then?

Both Brown and Keat indulgated themselves in extra-marital affairs.

Brown failed to disclose that when he pimped her for a Council job.

Keat failed to disclose the relationship that on his vetting form.

Brown will be found as having acted 'unwisely'.

Keat is gone burger.

Glad you are happy with the double standards being applied. I'm not.

Psycho Milt said...

Am I bothered that the military has much more restrictive ideas of what behaviour is a person's own presonal business? No, not really - we don't have conscription any more, so service personnel have all volunteered to be subject to the totalitarianism of military life.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

"...victim of a smear campaign by a sleazy tabloid journo scumbag, a right-wing blogger and a political hack,..."

Isn't it a real bastards Milt, when one of your heroes is taken down by his own selfish stupidity?

I mean, Brown chased this girl down, fucked her, gave her a reference, got her a job, bought her some cheapskate lingerie but in your mind he's the victim.

Slater refused to publish what he thought was going to be a sexual harassment complaint until he had verified and checked by way of an affidavit. There was no smear campaign. The story came out of the blue.

Tell me Milt, how long do you think those paragons of journalistic virtue Brian Rudman or Tracy Watkins would have held back if there had been just a sniff of a rumour of infidelity on the part of John Key two weeks out from the last election?

The Herald and the Dompost would have had innuendo all over their front pages.

Psycho Milt said...

1. Brown isn't a "hero" to me. He seems a very silly man, and the lurid details painted of his infidelity seem entirely credible given his apparent inability to recognise when he's engaging in cringeworthily embarrassing behaviour.

2. What Brown and Chuang did with each other's body parts is a matter for them and Shirley Inglis - it's nothing to me and no business of anyone else's either.

3. Oh, please. This woman's been misused far worse by messrs Wewege, Cook and Slater than she ever was by Brown. Mostly by Wewege and Cook, but Slater voluntarily participated.

4. I expect that, like other journalists, Rudman and Watkins hear plenty of rumours of infidelity by politicians. They don't then do a Stephen Cook - pen a porn epic and pressure one of the parties involved to sign it. That's because they're journalists, not sleazebags.

Watcher said...

For PM.
The two animals so critical of your comments are not Auckland ratepayers.

One is in Northland and the other in Australia.

Gee....maybe it's more about politics?

Psycho Milt said...

I can't point the finger at them for that - I live in Palmerston North. Are any actual Aucklanders commenting on this?

The Veteran said...

Watcher ... that's interesting. So in your brave new world only those living in Auckland are entitled to comment on Brown's affair(s).

Of course it's about politics. Last time I looked Brown was a politician although, to be fair, Keat wasn't.

p.s. Refer to me or one of my co-bloggers again as an 'animal' and you can watch from the sidelines for a bit.

Watcher said...

Well the thrust of you post appears to be in the realm of why shouldn't the punishment given to Keats be the same for Brown.

I would have thought that was for Auckland ratepayers to decide but it doesn't matter as you are not going to post this.

The Veteran said...

Watcher ... para 1. Glad you picked that up.

para 2. sorry to disappoint.

I think this thread has outlived its usefulness.


Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Correct me if I'm wrong but do not all enrolled voters vote? Not just ratepayers?