Scenic Hotel company versus Andrew Little

Founders of Scenic Hotel Group, Earl and Lani Hagaman, say they would welcome an Auditor General investigation into allegations and insinuations made by Andrew Little, and they are considering legal action Little’s comments.

NZ Herald: Scenic Group founders consider legal action

The $101,000 donation was made on 18 September, the last week of the election campaign in 2014. A month later Scenic Hotels won a contract to manage the Matavai Hotel on Niue, which is owned by a trust appointed by Foreign Minister Murray McCully on behalf of the Niue Government.

Mr Little said the timing “stinks to high heaven” and wrote to the Auditor General last week asking for an investigation into the donation and the handling of the contract, which was signed between Scenic Hotel Group and the hotel board in October 2014.

The Auditor General is yet to decide whether to investigate but in a statement, the Hagamans said they would welcome an investigation from the Auditor General and would cooperate fully.

“In fact we request that an investigation occurs urgently in order to remove any doubt about the integrity and honesty of our name,” said Mrs Hagaman.

Lani Hagaman said the management contract for Matavai Resort Niue was gained by Scenic Hotel Group in an open and contestable process against other hotel groups.

Mrs Hagaman said it was a “political beat-up” by Mr Little.

“We are not interested in being Mr Little’s political football. These nasty and unfounded allegations need to stop and I would urge Andrew Little to stop wasting tax payer money on trying to promote his own political party and ego.”

This is a fairly predictable response to Little’s attack.

His insinuations suggested collusion between the National Party, Murray McCully, Scenic Hotels and the board members of the Niue Tourism Property Trust (including Jacinda Ardern’s father, ex policeman and New Zealand High Commissioner to Niue) in the awarding of a contract.

Ian Fitzgerald, the chairman of the Matavai Niue Limited which runs the Matavai has also now spoken, saying he would have “absolutely no concerns” if the Auditor-General looked into the process.

Mr Fitzgerald is one of four board members appointed by the Niue Tourism Property Trust to oversee the running of the hotel, which $18 million of New Zealand aid money has been invested in. The agreement was negotiated and signed between Scenic Hotels and the board rather than the Trust itself. Mr Fitzgerald said he was unaware Mr Hagaman had donated to the National Party and the board had only dealt with Scenic Hotels Group’s managing director, Brendan Taylor. It was in contract negotiations with Scenic Group for six months before the contract was awarded – well before the donation was made.

This confirms some obvious timing issues with Little’s claim – a one month timeframe from donation to awarding of the contract, suggested as a coincidence of concern, seemed far too short to have credibility.

In a statement, Mr Little said he was pleased the Hagamans would fully cooperate with an investigation. “The public deserves full transparency on this issue given National’s largest financial donor gave the party $100,000 during a tender process, then a month later his company was awarded a major government contract. The public must have confidence that the process led by Murray McCully was above board.”

Little is still digging – digging at McCully and digging a dirty politics hole.

If the Auditor General decides to investigate and finds impropriety in the awarding of the contract then there could be serious repercussions for McCully, who has signalled his exit from politics next year anyway.

If no problem is found this will not look good for Little, at a time that his credibility as a potential Prime Minister may come under increasing scrutiny and pressure.

Little has provided no evidence of impropriety, he has just made very strong insinuations in saying the timing “stinks to high heaven”.

Winston Peters gets away with this sort of dirty politics quite often but it is remarkable for a Labour leader to directly involve themselves in an attack like this.

This was a very risky move by Little, following an attack on tax expert John Shewan last week. It could be make or break for his leadership and possibly for his political career.

Leave a comment

67 Comments

  1. Alan Wilkinson

     /  21st April 2016

    Labour has trivialised political opposition and is reaping the consequences: it is now competing with Winston for the idiot vote.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  21st April 2016

      Right at the moment he may just be ahead in that race. And the finish line might be getting shifted closer to him.

      Reply
    • Pantsdownbrown

       /  21st April 2016

      You’re right – with each failed ‘conspiracy’ Labour becomes more and more irrelevant.

      The ‘boy who cried wolf’ syndrome is strong.

      Reply
      • PDB. Agree entirely with the boy/cry/wolf analogy. Labour’s whining is just background noise. To be fair gutter has been their stock in trade for decades, long before this feckless lot, but we’ve built up an immunity to it. I believe the NZ public to be fair minded, reasonable and by and large positive. Labour’s negativity and gotcha politicking does not fit or service their community – itheir type of politics is an anachronism. When they yell “corruption” people see the bullshit flag flying. They need to clear their ranks of these idiots and get some practical hard working researchers and start reframing who they are, what they want and what they can deliver. Joe and Jane VoteforSale don’t see how pettiness, vitriol, hatred and jealousy would transform into constructive government.

        Reply
  2. Strong For Life

     /  21st April 2016

    Mr Hagaman should sue Little for defamation at the least.

    This is another of Little’s spineless, slanderous attacks based on innuendo with zero evidence to support it. Andrew Little is a disgrace. I do not understand why much of the media report his allegations and slurs verbatim without checking the facts first.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  21st April 2016

      Re not checking facts, I think it’s just a general decline in standards, downsizing of staffing (removing editors/sub-editors who once might perhaps have required this step) and pressure to get the “news/scandal” out there before someone else does.

      Reply
  3. Corky

     /  21st April 2016

    No doubt about it, this could be D-Day for Andy. How he continues to dig the same hole to a greater depth is beyond me.

    Meanwhile, Key can look forward to to bathing in the reflective glory of Clark becoming the possible UN head Honcho, a possible presidential visit and a Knighthood. Oh, and another electoral victory

    The chasm between winner and loser couldn’t be greater. Pity Labour can’t see that.

    Reply
    • jamie

       /  21st April 2016

      How could Key possibly accept a knighthood after spending a year trying to convince us that we should be cutting our symbolic traditional apron-ties to Mother England?

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  21st April 2016

        He & Bronagh overnighted at Buck House. That’s pretty rare isn’t it? If one’s on offer it would be great on the CV and absolutely top off a stellar career stint as NZ PM.

        Reply
  4. Blazer

     /  21st April 2016

    ‘Mrs Hagaman’ doing the talking now….McCully is a liability.

    Reply
  5. jamie

     /  21st April 2016

    “Winston Peters gets away with this sort of dirty politics quite often but it is remarkable for a Labour leader to directly involve themselves in an attack like this.”

    Yes very true, he should delegate this sort of thing to an underling. Perhaps someone like Annette King would be better placed to handle any potential blowback?

    But it’s a bit of a case of damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t really.

    The whole deal does stink to high heaven, as anything involving McCully does, but there was no need to have his own hands in the muck.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  21st April 2016

      Maybe Clayton would’ve been the best choice … he’s off out of it all soon.

      Reply
  6. alloytoo

     /  21st April 2016

    It would appear that Labour has graduated from barking at passing buses to barking at parked cars, bicycles and the occasional pair of roller-blades.

    Reply
    • jamie

       /  21st April 2016

      Barking at enormous donations is legitimate, isn’t it?

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  21st April 2016

        Yes, but not making a totally failed disconnect with something else. Doh.

        Reply
      • alloytoo

         /  21st April 2016

        I don’t see why?

        Donation made, donation disclosed. Nothing to bark at. (unless of course your hopes of getting similar donations is pretty slim.)

        Reply
        • jamie

           /  21st April 2016

          Donation made, donation disclosed, tender awarded, dodgy Texan, Murray McCully.

          Worth a look.

          Reply
    • David

       /  21st April 2016

      They have given up waiting for things to bark at, they just yap yap yap and it’s a pure coincidence if something happens to be about.

      Reply
  7. duperez

     /  21st April 2016

    “Considering legal action” = let’s change the tide and get those anti whoever is asking questions, taking the statement as gospel and evidence that we have been wronged?

    Reply
  8. Clemgeopin

     /  21st April 2016

    If the roles were reversed and National was the opposition with the important duty of holding the Government to account and Labour was the Government, Wouldn’t National/Key hold Labour to task when there is a potential scandal or corruption at play? If you think so, then just STFU you dishonest hypocritical pathetic idiots.

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  21st April 2016

      You know that Ross Ardern could not possibly be party to a corrupt tender favouring the National party yet you claim a potential corruption.

      “Dishonest hypocritical pathetic idiots”, here is your mirror.

      Reply
    • alloytoo

       /  21st April 2016

      In this situation like any competent lawyer one should never ask a question one doesn’t know the answer to.

      If their was corruption, Little should have had all his ducks lined up and ready to go before he made his allegations, which would have left no doubt in anybody’s mind.

      Instead we have a rather tenuous link and a smear on citizens going about their legal business.

      Reply
      • SteveRemmington

         /  21st April 2016

        “If their was corruption, Little should have had all his ducks lined up and ready to go before he made his allegations, which would have left no doubt in anybody’s mind.”

        He does appear to suffer from premature ejaculation.

        This time it seems he has blown his load even before he got his pants off.

        Reply
    • John Schmidt

       /  21st April 2016

      It’s called due diligence. The National front bench are mostly people who understand business and money. They would have figured pretty early in their investigation that nothing untoward has happened and that to bark at this passing car would be politically damaging, hence why National are the government and Labour isn’t.

      Reply
    • David

       /  21st April 2016

      “Wouldn’t National/Key hold Labour to task when there is a potential scandal or corruption at play?”

      Sure, but I suspect they might at least try and sniffer out something solid before they task Key with running the assault.

      Reply
      • That Little is resorting to doing his own dirty work could suggest that no one else is prepared to do it for him.

        Reply
        • David

           /  21st April 2016

          It does, doesn’t it?

          Everyone else just hiding in the trenches hoping the polls don’t come for them? Last man standing? Little on a death or glory suicide mission to take out Key?

          Reply
  9. Dougal

     /  21st April 2016

    Perhaps PDB has a “position on this” 🙂

    Reply
  10. Clemgeopin

     /  21st April 2016

    Opposition leader Andrew Little has stood by his calls for an investigation into a Niue resort contract won by National Party donors.

    The Christchurch millionaire made a donation to the National Party during the 2014 election of $101,000. A month later, they won a tender to manage the Matavai resort in Niue, which receives funding and governance from the New Zealand Government.

    Little said on RNZ it was his job seek to assurance for the New Zealand public that there was “nothing untoward” in the management of the tender.

    “If you make massive donations to a political party in Government, and you’re in the business of tendering for Government work, and you get that work, then it is natural suspicions are aroused and questions are asked.They should be.”

    He said he’s only referred to the facts of the matter.

    Little’s beef was with the Government, who had a track record of “dodgy” dealings which needed transparency such as the SkyCity Casino deal and the Saudi sheep deal.

    “I’ve had a lifetime of standing up to very powerful, privileged interests,” he said, and being threatened with law suits was nothing new.

    It’s what happens when you ask for assurances about integrity and propriety, he said: “It doesn’t faze me at all”.
    Ad Feedback

    He was happy the hotel founders would cooperate with an inquiry.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/79163924/labour-leader-andrew-little-defends-suspicion-over-niue-resort-contract

    I think Mr Little is simply doing his job as he should as any the leader of the opposition would, including Key. It would be negligent and irresponsible of him not to do so.

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  21st April 2016

      What you are trying to say is that Little thinks he knows what he ought to be doing but has no clue as to how to do it properly.

      His bigger problem is that he just doesn’t know what he ought to be doing either.

      Reply
  11. jamie

     /  21st April 2016

    While listening to the interviews and reading various blogs on the matter I’ve tried to leave aside for now the political questions of whether he’s handling it correctly. I think the people criticising him will instinctively criticise him regardless of what he does or says. It’s just partisan politics and not that interesting.

    But going purely by the strength, speed, and defensiveness of the reactions I’d guess he’s probably on to something.

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  21st April 2016

      Your guess is worth what it cost in analytical investigation – nothing.

      Reply
      • jamie

         /  21st April 2016

        Your insults are just another data point.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  21st April 2016

          Mine was an accurate value assessment, not an insult. The universal dismissive response you misinterpreted was due to the half-witted nature of Little’s complaint, not any virtue in it, as has been amply demonstrated including your failure to defend it with either facts or logic.

          Reply
          • jamie

             /  22nd April 2016

            Yes of course. Your reckons are pure fact and everyone else’s reckons are just reckons.

            Reply
    • Pantsdownbrown

       /  21st April 2016

      Jamie: “But going purely by the strength, speed, and defensiveness of the reactions I’d guess he’s probably on to something”

      On something alright……….

      Reply
  12. Missy

     /  22nd April 2016

    I see over at TS they are running the party line that Little was only ever talking about the Government and he didn’t smear the trustees or the board or the Hagamans. They are also already lining up the party line for if/when nothing untoward is found in the deal – apparently the corrupt Government is going to cover it all up.

    It is ibvious to anyone who can think and process what Litrle has said he has – by association levelled accusations of corruption against all involved – not just the Government as he claims.

    If there truly was a connection between the awarding of the contract and the donation as Little alleges, then yes he is suggesting that the Hagamans are corrupt and buying a contract with a donation – there is no other way he can spin the alleged Government corruption without alleging corruption against the Hagamans. Then the board would need to have been complicit as they were the one’s that awarded the contract, and as the board were appointed by the trustees then it is obvious that Little’s allegations spread to include all of them – as they all had a part to play.

    So, why didn’t any of Little’s advisers talk this through with him before letting him loose? Or did they send him down this track? This truly could be the end of Little, especially if the Hagamans go ahead with suing him for defamation – Little could be in big trouble with this one, it is a mistake he won’t be able to get out of if it is shown that there is no wrongdoing.

    Reply
    • Clemgeopin

       /  22nd April 2016

      ” if/when nothing untoward is found in the deal”

      Missy, do you ‘honestly’ think or feel or sense that there was ‘nothing untoward’ in the deal when there was a donation of $100,000 to the National party during the tender process and the contact was given to them a month later plus a few months later $7.5 million more of the aid money for that same hotel upgrade as per the reports? Don’t you think this scent of a shady deal needs investigation? Please answer honestly so that your conscience is absolutely clear, true and pure.

      If the roles were reversed do you honestly think that National/Key would not have taken Labour to task? Shouldn’t they?

      Remember that the price of Democracy and honest Government is eternal vigilance by good people.

      Reply
      • What is it about the left and dot joining? They refer to a collective VRWC (vast Right Wing Conspiracy) and the irony is that this label in itself is conspiracy think. There’s not much they don’t regard as conspiratorial. There’s:

        1) Jews and Israel
        2) Bankers
        3) Businessmen
        4) Tories
        5) Centrists
        6) Straight white men
        7) Straight white women who support #7
        8) Rotary and all service clubs
        9) Entrepreneurs
        10) John Key
        11) Judith Collins
        12) Paula (Benefit) Bennett
        13) Charter Schools
        14) Employers
        15) Climate skeptics
        16) Fundy religious (except Muslims and other non western groups)
        17) Western historical figures who represent western wealth creation, western expansion
        18)Rich people of any type except Gareth Morgan and Les Mills bloke
        19) Security services “spying” (yet use FaceBook & all Social Media with alacrity)
        20) etcetra

        All of the above are in league to advance a Tory system that delivers them, and them alone riches beyond reason and power over all dominions. If you see me as overstating the left’s conspiracies, I challenge you to read a few threads at TDB and TS.

        Investigate the process in Niue by all means. But then let’s open up the floor to Labour. One with more than a whiff about it is The Jones/ Bill Liu citizenship.

        “Mr Jones’ failure to record why he IGNORED OFFICIAL ADVICE to reject Mr Liu’s application and his failure to even document under which section of the Citizenship Act he granted Mr Liu’s application brought his reputation and that of New Zealand into disrepute”

        What about Labour donor Owen Glenn payoff to Peters for his electoral overspend for starters. Cunliffe’s unrevealed donors for leadership are going to be fair game, also. Were they expecting favours? Why their need for secrecy? Labour has nothing in her coffers, nobody except that Mills bloke, the Morgans and Unions are about to hand money to that dysfunctional lot. Bring it on Labour, but be sure matters you’d rather let lie will be rattled.

        It’ll be a pleasure to pay for an audit of Scenic/Niue if we get Cunliffe’s donor’s names and a deeper investigation into Labour’s connections to China’s no #5 ex-pat criminal Bill Liu.

        Reply
        • Clemgeopin

           /  22nd April 2016

          To me, it does not matter which party or which politician does the corrupt crap stuff, be it Labour, NZF, National, ACT or any of the others. Those should be truthfully exposed, honestly investigated and serious action taken.

          This government has been in power for eight years and they should have had the integrity and courage to do so by now. Why haven’t they?

          It does not matter who the perpetrator is, be it Key, McCully, English, Clarke, Cunliffe, Peters, Jones, Oravida, Arabian sheep Sheik, Scenic hotel, Hillary, Bernie, Trump or whosoever.

          Shit is shit no matter whose it is and in what quantity. It is the duty of every official, every politician and every voter in a democracy to ensure that it is cleaned up.

          Reply
          • Pantsdownbrown

             /  22nd April 2016

            Sounds good Clem – now who are all these ‘corrupt’ people you speak of so we can investigate?

            Reply
          • Traveller

             /  22nd April 2016

            “To me, it does not matter which party or which politician does the corrupt crap stuff, be it Labour, NZF, National, ACT or any of the others. Those should be truthfully exposed, honestly investigated and serious action taken.”

            Clem. You’re a pretty well Labour can do no wrong kind of bloke from what I see. I get that, as I’m fairly one-eyed National myself. I read you a bit on TS and TDB and ti my way of thinking you’re primarily a strategist. Your position, for example ( not saying whether right or wrong) was that the Greens were disloyal to the left cause over the Red Peak; that they were somehow letting Key “off the hook”, so to speak. You’re a Labour loyalist and there’s nothing wrong with that. Saying that you apply the same standards in judging the left as you do the right is a tad disingenuous. If you can point me to positions you’ve taken where you’ve actively advocated the same sunlight applied to the left over the years then I’ll stand corrected. If you can’t then I’ll go back to seeing you as a Labour loyalist. As I say nothing wrong with that, just own it.

            Yours a happy with Key National voter.

            Reply
            • Clemgeopin

               /  22nd April 2016

              I am a Labour voter now but I have, believe it or not, voted for National on two elections.

              I hate corruption, liars and crooks and uncontrolled free market and capitalism and no matter what party they are from, that does not mean I am against capitalism or free market or wealth or rich pricks and it also does not mean that I can not comment or hold views like the Red Peak flag issue Vs The Greens against the Greens, nor does it mean that I must comment on every issue.

              Sometimes I think through issues and comment, sometimes I comment on the spur of the moment and sometimes I just think.

              I do honestly stand by everything I said on my comment you are referring to. I have taken left politicians to task too but there have been far less genuine occasions.

              For example, in earlier times, I have criticised Clarke for her poor decision about the signature on the painting though tempered with the understanding that fiasco wasn’t for personal gain but to help a charity fund raiser. Similarly I did critise her for the dangerous speeding motor car ride, though she wasn’t the driver of course. I have criticised Peters for delay in joining the Bolger coalition and his Glen donation shenanigans. Also Philip Field and the hypocritical RW Christian political leader (forgotten the rotters name) who was put in jail for his despicable acts on kids.

              In my opinion, the ways of the RW Parties and politicians of National. ACT, Key, Douglas, Joyce, English, The Bretheren, Shipley, the Wine Box characters, Arab sheep scandal etc etc are way way more seriously flawed and much more dodgy compared to what you see from Labour or the Greens.

              Just my honest opinion which you probably won’t agree with anyway.

            • Clemgeopin

               /  22nd April 2016

              @Traveller :

              Ok, I have answered your query. Now see if you can answer the following which I had asked Missy to do but she hasn’t.

              “Do you ‘honestly’ think or feel or sense that there was ‘nothing untoward’ in the Scenic Hotel deal when there was a donation of $100,000 to the National party during the tender process and the contact was given to them a month later plus a few months later $7.5 Million more of the aid money for that same hotel upgrade as per the reports? Don’t you think this scent of a shady deal needs investigation? Please answer honestly so that your conscience is absolutely clear, true and pure.

              If the roles were reversed do you honestly think that National/Key would not have taken Labour to task? Shouldn’t they?

              Remember that the price of Democracy and honest Government is eternal vigilance by good people”

          • Pantsdownbrown

             /  22nd April 2016

            I’m all up for fighting corruption Clem and you obviously have hard evidence of it occurring in this country and not being investigated, so be a good sort and tell us who is doing it, with hard evidence of wrongdoing, and we can all join the good fight together. Go!

            Reply
            • Traveller

               /  22nd April 2016

              Clemgeopin

              Sorry for tardy reply and thanks for yours. I’ve been socialising with a group of colleagues of all kinds tonight and the subject of Niue came up. “Egg on face” was the first call, “Jacinda’s Dad” and “what a klutz”. Nobody seemed remotely interested in the issue of potential COI. The hit was so poorly planned, so inexpertly executed and subsequently bungled we’ll probably never know whether it has legs. Little will be even more hated by Team Gracinda and he’ll get zero support for this line from what are a huge faction in Labour caucus.

              On the face of it, I certainly don’t see anything wrong with a man who makes a habit of political donations – making another one. There was no attempt to disguise the donor, all was above board and declared. Any connection you and others allege could well be without basis, judging by the openness.

              Now, if you’re looking for scandal then look no further than Owen Glenn and his massive contributions to Labour.

              #He donated $500,000 to Labour for the 2005 election.
              #This is the largest known donor ever in New Zealand politics.
              #The Labour Party amended the Electoral Finance Bill to specifically allow him to keep donating money, while restricting other foreign donations to $1,000 (by defining a foreign donation as being okay from overseas residents who are NZ citizens even though they are ineligible to enrol or vote)
              #He gave Labour a further $100,000 interest free loan in 2007.
              #Labour gave him a gong – Officer of the NZ Order of Merit in 2007.
              #Labour President Mike Williams lied when he said they had not received a donation from Owen Glenn since the 2005 election, as the interest free loan counts as a donation.

              I reserve my strongest condemnation though for what I consider the most corrupt and undemocratic action in the history of NZ politics. I’m not talking Taito Field Labour Minister, I’m talking the amendment of the Electoral Finance Act to legitimise the Labour/NZ First gross over expenditure in 2005. Please don’t tell me you think the Brethrenn’s pathetic little pamphlet putting ( what they felt was) the lie to the Green’s election mail-out even remotely compares to the blatant self interest of that nonsense legislation.

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_New_Zealand_election_funding_controversy

              In time-honoured Labour sleaze fashion Trevor Mallard and David Benson-Pope, of the tennis ball fame, went on to allege Dr Brash was having an affair in Parliament – ending his political career. A disgraceful episode. Mr Benson-Pope ended his career ignominiously, but we must still suffer the tedious Mallard. However repugnant Mallard is he must scratch his head at the incompetency of Little in the execution of the political dark arts.

      • Clemgeopin

         /  22nd April 2016

        Can the down voter explain what was the reason for the down vote? Just curious.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  22nd April 2016

          That’s exactly why down votes are useless, C, and why I never use them.

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  22nd April 2016

            I try to only use them on utter bastards now. I think there’s only one here and I can’t at the moment remember who he is.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  22nd April 2016

              XD

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  22nd April 2016

              Looks like he remembered you.

            • Gezza

               /  22nd April 2016

              Was only joshin’ too, but there ya go. Clem. It’s survivable mate. 😀

            • Clemgeopin

               /  22nd April 2016

              @Gezza: I am not worried about the vote, but just curious as to what the reason for the down vote was, that’s all. Just intriguing. Was the reason the dislike of the writer or the view expressed in that comment?

            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  22nd April 2016

              hmmmm – it is perplexing Clem, and your ‘down clicks’ seem to be growing?? A conspiracy perhaps? Dare I say it………even……………CORRUPTION!?

          • Gezza

             /  22nd April 2016

            If I had to guess I’d say it’s dislike of what you wrote Clem and you won’t be getting an answer. No one has to explain their up or down ticks. If it’s any consolation I’m ahead of you in the downvotes. I hope you don’t mind coming second?

            Reply
        • Traveller

           /  22nd April 2016

          Personally I love both giving and receiving down votes. Why would they worry anyone?

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  22nd April 2016

            I wonder now if you’re the mysterious UB 😀

            Reply
            • Please explain, I’ve been a long time out of here. (Universal Benefit? Ugly B*ugger?, Unemployed Benficiary?).

            • Gezza

               /  22nd April 2016

              Oh dear I’ve got three now. Scroll up to where I’ve got three down ticks just above.
              Only joshin’ with ya now trav – just in case you want to add another 😀

        • Iceberg

           /  22nd April 2016

          Maybe they thought it was sanctimonious, passive aggressive, hypocritical tripe?

          Not me though, I’d never think that.

          Reply
  13. Blazer

     /  22nd April 2016

    ‘What about Labour donor Owen Glenn payoff to Peters ‘….so many ‘long bows’ in your list,but this one probably sums up your desperation.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

%d bloggers like this: