Wednesday, December 19, 2018

Follow the money. Just... follow the money


So, it turns out there is something deeply dodgy at the bottom of the Karel Sroubek affair after all, just not the something that Mark Mitchell would have you believe. (Speaking of Mitchell, it's kind of funny that someone who hired dirty-politics specialists Slater and Lusk to help get him selected and can't tell journalists how many people he's killed, calls Sroubek a "nasty piece of work.")

Here's the timeline:

19 September: Iain Lees-Galloway performs the mundane task of looking at his officials' report on Karel Sroubek's request to overturn his deportation order, and grants it on the basis there's a credible risk to the guy's life if he's returned to his original country. Nobody finds this in any way unusual, because it isn't.

Weeks pass. Sroubek's ex-wife, who's now fucking a Nat insider called Mark Davey, starts trying to sell their jointly-owned home and business.

26 October: Sroubek places a caveat on the sale process to protect his share.

28 October:  DPF posts "Labour grants residency to recidivist criminal!!", in which Lees-Galloway's routine decision to overturn Sroubek's deportation order is suddenly a shock-horror story worthy of multiple exclamation marks.

Over the next week, DPF makes multiple posts on the subject and the attack gets into full swing in the House.  It becomes clear that National knows a lot more about Sroubek than Minister Lees-Galloway's officials did, and its MPs use this info to attack the Minister's competence.

28 November: the government accepts that National's attack has been successful and cuts its losses.  Sroubek's deportation order is re-instated, with various implausible reasons given because the actual reason, "We're cutting our losses," isn't one a politician can announce publicly.

In the meantime, some people had started asking themselves how it could be that National knew more about Sroubek's situation than the Immigration officials who'd reported on it to the minister, and others had come to the correct conclusion that the inside information was being provided to National by Sroubek's ex-wife, via Mark Davey.

5 December: with the cat out of the bag, National tries a new tack. DPF dutifully posts "Sroubek’s estranged wife is ‘afraid for her life’", part of a new narrative in which the ex-wife now isn't so much an informant as a damsel in distress being horribly victimised by the evil Sroubek and his dastardly cronies in the Labour Party. They've been running with that one ever since, with the latest effort being carefully-edited exerpts from a recorded phone call.

I had been under the impression that ex-Mrs Sroubek was being duped by National in yet another of its dirty-politics capers, but Sroubek's letter to the Herald unveiled the true story by making the timeline clear:

The caveat was placed on October 26 and the news about Sroubek getting residency broke two days later. 

That sentence is all you really need to know about the Sroubek affair.  Nice hit, very successful for both the ex-wife and her new boyfriend's political party. Always follow the money...

33 comments:

Andrei said...

Maybe all true PM but it does not alter the fact that Karel Sroubek is a very nasty piece of work and a man this country would be better off without

Johno said...

It's sad to see our resident Labour spokesman and chief apologist cuddling up to a wife abusing violent drug importing immigration fraudster criminal.

All because politics trumps all else, including basic morality, for Milt,

Normally you at least try to keep the veil ii place, revelations of secret texts and recorded phone calls pushed you over the edge, Milt?

Psycho Milt said...

All because politics trumps all else, including basic morality, for Milt...

Hilarious that you should write that under this post...

The Veteran said...

Clearly the Sroubek affair is getting to you Milt ... and so it should with so many questions still to be answered by the Fairy Princess over her personal relationship with Richart Hardcore, close friend of the convicted criminal; his (Hardcore's) contact(s) with her regarding the decision by Lees-Galloway to decline deportation (since reversed) and just why the Prime Minister thinks its OK to maintain a close friendship with Hardcore given his connections with the drug world. I'll put it more bluntly ... was Hardcore her 'ex' before Jethro came along?

As for Mitchell and I'll take his word over that of Hager any day. For the record Mitchell denies paying Lusk to help him with his selection campaign but, even if he did, so what? That's what political strategists do. Mitchell won the selection fair and square on the vote of delegates representing 2,000+/- local Party members. He went on to win that election with over 62.15% of the vote beating the 58.99% racked up by the popular Lockwood Smith in 2008. He has maintained that margin ever since. Hard to do if he was the 'nasty piece of work' you allege.

And wots with this feekin bit of nonsense that he can't tell journos how many people he's killed. I can't; Charlie Upham couldn't; there would be very few people involved in a combat situation who could ... and YOU bang on about Dirty Politics.

Anyway, to cut to the chase. You seem seized with the fact that the National Party had a source and was better informed than the Government on the issue .... errrrrr, no shit Sherlock ... so what? The Opposition's job is to cultivate sources and use them to political advantage. But the simple fact remains that Lees-Galloway was so feekin incompetent (his admission) that he didn't read the file which advised him against making the decision he did or worse, that I-LG had been 'got at' by 'somebody' to turn a 'Nelson's eye' to the reality in the hope it would all disappear under the radar. And still more curious the fact that Ardern and Peters backed his decision 100% saying that they too would have made the same one ... why, why why?

So we ended up as you so succinctly put it ... '28 November: the government accepts National's attack had been successful and cuts its losses' ... translated ... this was a clusterf**k all of our own making so all we can do is reverse the decision and hope it goes away ... it hasn't.

So now the meme from the Beehive/Frazer House, dutifully followed by PM, is to go after Mrs Sroubek. OK, she has a new partner who may or may not have National Party connections. I too have Labour and Green Party connections who I talk to ... so what? Tell you this for nothing ... were I Mrs Sroubek I too would have gone for a Protection Order against her ex ... he's the nasty piece of work, not her, and his criminal history proves it.

So, the really BIG question ... why did IL-G, Ardern and Peters choose to align themselves with Sroubek?

Psycho Milt said...

...so many questions still to be answered by the Fairy Princess over her personal relationship with Richart Hardcore, close friend of the convicted criminal; his (Hardcore's) contact(s) with her regarding the decision by Lees-Galloway to decline deportation (since reversed) and just why the Prime Minister thinks its OK to maintain a close friendship with Hardcore given his connections with the drug world. I'll put it more bluntly ... was Hardcore her 'ex' before Jethro came along?

So many completely irrelevant, pointless questions to ask about something that comes down to a marital property dispute between two unpleasant characters.

And wots with this feekin bit of nonsense that he can't tell journos how many people he's killed. I can't; Charlie Upham couldn't;

You and Charlie Upham weren't private contractors who signed up to kill people for money. Mitchell was. the question of whether he did actually kill people, and if so how many (ballpark figure would do) is very relevant to making an assessment of his character.

You seem seized with the fact that the National Party had a source and was better informed than the Government on the issue .... errrrrr, no shit Sherlock ... so what?

So, the fact that there is nothing to this story other than a disgruntled ex-wife applying leverage in a marital property dispute.


But the simple fact remains that Lees-Galloway was so feekin incompetent (his admission) that he didn't read the file which advised him against making the decision he did or worse, that I-LG had been 'got at' by 'somebody' to turn a 'Nelson's eye' to the reality in the hope it would all disappear under the radar.

That's National's allegation, yes. However, the decision was an entirely reasonable one based on the facts in front of him. Even Wayne Mapp, no Labour partisan, can see that. And the decision was only overturned because National's dirty-politics propaganda was proving successful - the only point at which Labour's acted with less than integrity in this episode.

So, the really BIG question ... why did IL-G, Ardern and Peters choose to align themselves with Sroubek?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Johno said...

"So many completely irrelevant, pointless questions to ask about something that comes down to a marital property dispute between two unpleasant characters."

Enough of the lies, Milt. You're as transparent as a pane of glass.

It does not in any way come down to a marital dispute. That's just your lame attempt to divert from what it comes down to: atthe very best an unbelievably incompetent and lazy immigration minister. Actually that's not true, he's negligent.

But worse, there's a stench around this that just won't go away. The stench of dishonesty and obfuscation. There are questions around relationships and influence with Sroubek, Hardcode and Ardern that won't go away because Ardern refuses to open the windows and clear it up.

And the government continues to obfuscate and duck for cover:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/109405849/government-delays-release-of-controversial-immigration-information-on-karel-sroubek

If the government is trying so hard to hide from us, we are right to be suspicious of them and ask the hard questions.

If this had all happened under the previous government, Milt, you would be among the loudest, screeching corruption and all kinds of malfeasance, and invoking the spectre of enabling violence against women to boot.

And you bloody well know it.



The Veteran said...

Milt ... clearly I've touched a raw nerve. Sorry, they're NOT pointless questions. They relate directly to the personal integrity of the Prime Minister.

As for your strange assertion that I-LG's original decision was a perfectly reasonable one and what planet are you posting from? The advice that Lees-Galloway should decline the application was in the feekin file ... the file that, by his own admission, he didn't bother to read. Why, why, why.

But I have to thank you too. Your post keeps the whole matter bubbling along.

The Veteran said...

PM ... just a follow up point. Wayne Mapp posted his comment on 12 November ... before the revelation that the file contained the formal advice that the Minister should confirm the deportation order.

pdm said...

Johnno well said - you took the words right off my keyboard.

Milt - you are fighting a valiant lone hand - but it is not a credible one. There are too many incompetents muddying the waters with Ardern leading the way in this area - why? and why is Peters the anti immigration champion supporting her to the hilt?

It looks like this saga will carry on well into 2019 - probably until Lees Galloway does the honourable thing and resigns his portfolio.

Johno said...

... which is what Ardern should have done right at the start. And would have if she had better political instincts.

Then again, she didn't. Why? Because she's too kind? Because she lacks the authority to remove a union boy? Because ILG has too much dirt to be touched?

Time will tell. An uncomfortable time for some. Christmas can't come soon enough for them.

The Veteran said...

and further Milt ... perhaps you should consider renaming your post 'Follow the Drugs'.

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

I wondered why everyone is piling into this post. As an affair of Govt and impact on the average families life it is nothing and the moment you mention the personal integrity of politicians of any stripe we all know that we are about to buried in bullshit. However it does take attention off of something more serious.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12179136

This happened on Nationals watch and the ramifications are much more serious than who did what to a failed asylum seeker. no, not as sexy but much much much more serious

Johno said...

And Nobut says "Look! Squirrel!"

The Veteran said...

Squirrel indeed ... the Sroubek affair is biting and even once 'tame' journos are starting to sense that bullshit stinks of ?????

Psycho Milt said...

...they're NOT pointless questions. They relate directly to the personal integrity of the Prime Minister.

Big whoop. For the entire time John Key was Prime Minister, The Standard was publishing posts full of questions relating to his personal integrity, most of which had only propaganda value. Yours fall into that same category. They're certainly irrelevant to the subject of my post.

As for your strange assertion that I-LG's original decision was a perfectly reasonable one and what planet are you posting from? The advice that Lees-Galloway should decline the application was in the feekin file...

You seem to be arguing that it's unreasonable for a Minister to make his own decision rather than simply obeying the instructions of his officials. That may have been how Woodhouse handled immigration decisions as Minister, but I'm glad Lees-Galloway is made of sterner stuff.

The decision was a reasonable one because it was based on credible claims that Sroubek's life would be in danger if he was sent back. If that turned out to be untrue based on information that only came to light later, as a consequence of a marital property dispute, that's no reflection on Lees-Galloway's decision at the time.

Psycho Milt said...

It does not in any way come down to a marital dispute. That's just your lame attempt to divert from what it comes down to: atthe very best an unbelievably incompetent and lazy immigration minister.

Here's the thing: I've posted a timeline that shows National started making use of inside information damaging to Sroubek (and by extension the government) two days after his ex-wife, who was sleeping with a Nat insider, acquired a compelling reason to see him deported. You've posted... er, some allegations, and various remote armchair diagnoses of my personality. One of these approaches is more compelling than the other, for obvious reasons.

But worse, there's a stench around this that just won't go away. The stench of dishonesty and obfuscation. There are questions around relationships and influence with Sroubek, Hardcode and Ardern that won't go away because Ardern refuses to open the windows and clear it up.

That's how dirty politics works. You make people imagine they can smell something. These "questions" are an updated version of the old political story in which the candidate instructs his team to spread gossip that his opponent fucks pigs. His opponent doesn't fuck pigs of course, the aim is just to make him publicly deny it.

The Veteran said...

PM ... what 'credible' claims that his life was in danger were he to be sent back? Sroubek saying that hardly constitutes 'credible'. Elucidate please.

Psycho Milt said...

I refer you (again) to Wayne Mapp's comment about it on this blog. Neither I nor the Minister have to justify to you what it was that he felt made the threat credible, however there is the fact that a district court judge who heard evidence on the matter found the threat credible, and I'll take his word for it over Simon Bridges' any day. You're entitled to feel personal incredulity about it yourself, but there's no reason that should matter to anyone else.

The Veteran said...

PM ... the DCJ reacting to what Sroubek told him ... no one else, only Sroubek who, in saying that failed to mention that he had already been back there several times already. Sometimes even DCJs get it wrong.

Johno said...

Milt whines about dirty politics while bringing up the private lives of others and taking potshots at a wife who is being subjected to threats of violence from her criminal ex husband. Is this really the calibre of the left these days? Vermin.

Psycho Milt said...

The judge begs to differ, and unlike you the judge heard the evidence.

Psycho Milt said...

Johno: I don't recall asking Sroubek's ex to help National's dirty politics team. Complain to Mark Mitchell if you want to bitch about how she's been treated. And please use the word "alleged" if you want to make libellous comments on my blog.

The Veteran said...

PM ... as I said, the Judge accepted Sroubek's word his life was in danger while Sroubek (conveniently) forgot to tell him that he had been back to the CR and returned safely.

Clearly the DCJ's decision was based on a tissue of lies.

Methinks you protesteth too much.

Johno said...

Milt, what are calling "alleged"? The threats are on tape (recorded by Corrections) and the criminal's past is on record. Nothing alleged about either and nothing that could be libellous as the truth is a complete defense.

And my issue with her treatment is the treatment she's getting from the likes of yourself and Winston dragging her, the victim, through the mud. Mark Mitchell isn't the problem - obviously - as she's dealing with him of her own accord.



Johno said...

"The judge begs to differ, and unlike you the judge heard the evidence."

No he didn't hear the evidence. Specifically he didn't hear that Sroubek had been back to the CR twice which blows his story of fearing for his life there out of the water. The judge also was unaware that Sroubek had been arrested for drug offences.

All evidence the judge did *not* hear.

Keep digging, Milt. China not far away now.

Anonymous said...

Interesting stuff. Thanks for the concise summary.

And bringing out the foaming-at-the-mouth Nat fanbots.

Conny

Psycho Milt said...

Well, you're both free to disagree with other people's decisions as much as you want. However, I'm not seeing the bit where I or they should care about your disagreement. For one thing, your disagreement is based on information that wasn't available to the decision-makers at the time, and for another there's no guarantee those decision-makers would have made different decisions if they'd had that information.

Psycho Milt said...

Nothing alleged about either and nothing that could be libellous as the truth is a complete defense.

"Stuff Johno believes to be true" and "the truth" are not necessarily equivalent. Use the word "alleged" in future.

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

Johno......it's messy but not critical and I know you get emotional about politics but there is no need to insult by using emotive language......you "state", Milt "whines" etc etc. The introduction of the squirrel serves a purpose. To take the attention away from what is a minor parliamentary spat that every drop of faux outrage has been wrung to something that affects our very democracy and will never be raised on this blog because it is laid fairly and squarely at Nationals door.

Johno said...

Come on Milt it's a simple question. What did I allege that is not known to be true?

Johno said...

"Minor parliamentary spat" eh? You and Milt are putting an awful lot into defending it then. If it as that minor you'd ignore and shrug it off.
As Vet says... you protesteth too much. Tellingly so.

Johno said...

I do withdraw and apologise for the vermin comment though. Sorry Milt.

Psycho Milt said...

No worries. I get insults and assessments of my personality on The Standard too, so it's not a right/left thing.

Re "alleged" - you stated that Sroubek's ex-wife is being threatened with violence by Sroubek, presumably on the basis of her say-so as a woman with a strong financial interest in seeing him deported, and an edited excerpt from a phone conversation released by said ex-wife with a strong financial interest in seeing him deported. You're free to decide for yourself that her allegation is true, but you're not free to declare the allegations true on a blog that I'm publishing and therefore accountable to the courts for.