Macskasy: “innocent until proven otherwise”

Frank Macskasy is a stalwart at The Daily Blog. Yesterday in response to comments he said:

So, Jollo, the guy has been charged – but not convicted of any offence?

Does the term “innocent until proven otherwise” mean anything to you?


Does the term “innocent until proven otherwise” mean anything to you?

I don’t determine a person’s guilt. That’s up to a court of law.

Or does several hundred years of jurisprudence meant nothing to you – especially when a “leftie” is involved? Hmmm, I thought you Right-wingers were big on Law & Order?

But he has different standards when it suits him, like in this post John Key: Profile of a trichophiliac.

There is nothing wrong, per se, in having a harmless hair fetish. Many in the population have fetishes – another example of the wide spectrum of human nature and sexuality.

Where the problem arises is when Key has harassed a cafe worker, and is also seen to have some sort of proclivity to touching other peoples’ children’s hair.

This is just not acceptable.

It must stop, or the Prime Minister must step down and seek professional help.

Meanwhile, the consequences of Key’s actions – if he doesn’t resign in disgrace – will be long-lasting. Just one implication of his behaviour, as I outlined in this letter-to-the-editor of The Dominion Post;


from: Frank Macskasy <>
to: Dominion Post <>
date: Thu, Apr 23, 2015
subject: Letter to the editor

The editor
Dominion Post

Every parent in the country will now be keeping a wary eye on John Key whenever he’s around their kids or daughters…

I’m sure teachers will be hovering around in the background, along with journos and photographers. The moment he touches a kid’s hair, a dozen cameras will be going off like machine guns…

For the rest of his career, people’s eyes will be on him – and not in a good way.


-Frank Macskasy

It would appear that Macskasy’s standards of evidence and proof of guilt are different when demanding the Prime Minister resign are concerned.

That’s not a one off. For example: Are Cameron Slater and Judith Collins bare-faced liars?

“It appears that Collins has attempted to hide her Facebook tracks”

“It appears that Slater and Collins are being pathetic in their attempt to be ‘cute’”


It is simply not remotely credible that Collins and Slater did not converse via Facebook.

I’m not sure that Collins has been found guilty yet.

And somewhat ironically following his conclusion:

There must be something truly awful in the works if the Nats are expending so much effort to smear an anonymous leaker.

The propaganda mill has just be churned into over-drive.

Macskasy is also active in comments.  Like:


Gobsmackinglly good tight critique of this cum Carpetbagger slimy operator.

The MSM orchestrated & carefully painstakingly massaged the PM’s “façade” or image as a friendly bloke the traitors.

This was never his real manner, which on any occasion in Parliament he displays everything else but this character which Key has carefully cultured since he was playing monopoly with his sister as he was cheating her at the same time.

No this man is a product of the far right and manicured to because “Our smiling assassin” by the Global elite at the Bilderberg “Club” he frequents just to rob our country of all our assets for them as they are doing to NZ and eyeing up Greece next.

Thanks for the laughter you engendered as I read this great piece of work Frank.

Who needs evidence? He thanks for Cleangreen for the compliment without any reference to the claimed MSM conspiracy theory and the Bilderberg  conspiracy theory. Funny.

Leave a comment


  1. jamie

     /  21st September 2015

    “innocent until proven guilty” doesn’t mean you can’t make allegations. I don’t really see the issue here.

    • It is PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty. AND NOT innocent until proven guilty. There is a big difference. Someone who has committed a crime is guilty of it whether proven or not – just that in the absence of proof, we PRESUME them to be innocent.

  2. traveller

     /  21st September 2015

    “The movie The Day of the Jackal was the inspiration for an identity scam, a court was told yesterday.

    Frank Macskasy, 48, an Upper Hutt manager, scanned death notices to steal a dead baby’s identity after watching the Hollywood thriller, and wanted to pull off a similar scam, the Dominion Post reported.

    Appearing yesterday in Upper Hutt District Court, Mackasy admitted one fraud charge after being picked up in an Internal Affairs audit. An impersonation charge was withdrawn.

    Prosecutor Neill Ford said Macskasy took the name of Graeme John Mitchell, a Lower Hutt baby who was born in May 1955 and died in November 1956, after finding his death notice.”

  3. traveller

     /  21st September 2015

    The hypocrisy ofcthis man is quite unlike any other on the left bloggerati

  4. Iceberg

     /  21st September 2015

    If you think of him as the Frank Spencer of that site, it helps explain the inconsistency and delusion.

  5. Who needs evidence?

    John Key did admit pulling the pony tail repeatedly and even being asked to stop.
    That is evidence and is not really disputed.

    So I am not sure if you can actually use this to make your point.

    • Guilty of an offence that justifies him resigning as Prime Minister?

      • No, but evidently guilty of the offence nonetheless.
        It’s not a matter of evidence, but of interpretation and gravity of the offence.
        Hence you using this as an example that Macskasy uses a different standard is slightly misplaced, that’s all.

        • What offence? Key hasn’t been charged with any offence, let alone been found guilty that would justify him resigning.

          • John Key has admitted pulling hair repeatedly and against the wishes of person.
            This is not disputed.

            That the police did not take this up or that the waitress did not pursue any further action does not change the fact.

            And I never said that he should be resigning over this.

            But one can have that position and it has nothing to do with “presumed innocent”. John Key admitted doing something and one can hold the position that, given his admission, he should resign. It may not be a sensible position or one that get’s much traction. But certainly not because the evidence is in dispute.

            • But whether any offence was committed or not is in dispute. Key has claimed he was just joking around while Bailey was obviously very annoyed but she chose to deal with it as an employment matter (which in part at least it was).

              Without it going to court it’s not possible to say with any certainty that an offence was committed. It was certainly weird behaviour, but a convictable offence?

            • jamie

               /  21st September 2015

              Where does Macskasy say anything about a convictable offense? As far as I can see those are your words, not his.

              His words, which I quoted below, you have not disagreed with.

            • Since when was the threshold for resignation of a politician being found guilty of a criminal offence? Of all the ministers who resigned in the last 3 terms, how many were convicted? Or even charged?

              A politicians behaviour does lead to resignation without it being a criminal offence.

          • jamie

             /  21st September 2015

            Pete, I assume you’re referring to this sentence:

            “It must stop, or the Prime Minister must step down and seek professional help.”

            With which part do you disagree? Are you saying it would be ok for the PM to NOT have stopped?

            I find it hard to imagine that you would be ok with that. Or are you referring to something else he has said?

            • Of course it had to stop. Stepping down seems to have not been asked for by Bailey, and I think Key will have learnt enough to have stopped this sort of behaviour.

            • jamie

               /  21st September 2015

              I agree. Either it had to stop, or he shouldn’t be PM anymore.

              So if that is the passage you’re referring to, you are in agreement with Macskasy on that point.

  6. tealeaves

     /  21st September 2015

    Traveller, is that the same Frank Macskasy as the Daily Blog guy?

  7. tealeaves

     /  21st September 2015

    Goodness me. I’m shocked. He’s very assiduous with the footnotes.

    • traveller

       /  21st September 2015

      That’s one of putting it tea leaves. Your understatement gave me a good laugh. 😉


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s