Winston Peters “we took the photos” used in ‘dirty politics’ post at The BFD

It’s seemed obvious since before the last election that there were some sort of arrangements between NZ First and Whale Oil.  The replacement The BFD has been increasingly being used as a shill and dirty politics attack medium for Peters and NZ First.

Winston Peters now seems to have admitted “we took the photos” used in a recent post at The BFD that tried to discredit RNZ after the revealed details of NZ First Foundation donations.

RNZ – Winston Peters on photos of reporters: ‘We took the photographs’

NZ First Leader Winston Peters says he was involved in having photographs taken of RNZ journalist Guyon Espiner, Stuff reporter Matt Shand and former NZ First president Lester Gray.

The photographs, and a video, were posted on The BFD, a Whale Oil-linked website which has been running stories defending New Zealand First and trying to belittle reporting about the NZ First Foundation donations.

The photos ran with an article criticising the reporting, which Espiner and Shand have both been involved in.

The deputy prime minister has said two reporters were photographed going to a meeting with Gray “to prove that was the sort of behaviour going on”.

When the photographs were raised with him by Magic Talk Radio, Peters said “we took the photographs”.

The photographs were shown on this post – REVEALED: Source Behind RNZ Hit Job by Guyon Espiner

Which states:

The BFD. Lester Gray and Guyon Espiner. Photo supplied.

We have even obtained video of it: Lester Gray and Guyon Espiner from The BFD on Vimeo.

It would be good if the media now investigate who is operating as Xavier Theodore Reginald Ordinary at The BFD, and whether any business or financial arrangements are involved. And whether there is any association with the NZ First Foundation.


UPDATE

One News:  ‘No interest’ – Winston Peters backtracks on photos taken of journalists investigating NZ First Foundation

During an interview with Magic Talk Radio this week, Mr Peters discussed the photographs.

When it was raised to him, he responded: “We took the photograph just to prove that that’s the kind of behaviour going on.”

But tonight, after the RNZ story was published online, Mr Peters distanced the party from the photographs.

“In response to media inquiries, I can confirm that NZF has no interest in following Guyon Espiner or any other journalists. In fact, the very reverse applies,” he told 1 NEWS.

“No private investigators have been engaged to follow Mr Espiner or anyone else.

“A supporter did think it odd when they saw ex-president Lester Grey with Mr Espiner so took a photo. Simple as that.”

But it isn’t that simple. There was also a video taken.

And then the “supporter” seems to have passed the photos and video on – to the party ending up at The BFD in a dirty politics style post.

 

Leave a comment

41 Comments

  1. Duker

     /  13th February 2020

    No wonder he did his own Facebook Q and A as the media won’t take his stories, you do know that the journos never treat their colleagues like politicians , but treat them with kid gloves and they can never do no wrong

    Reply
  2. Duker

     /  13th February 2020

    Slater has long had a vendetta against what he calls the media party, he’s long had a grudge there which far exceeds any love for Peter’s.
    But he’s right about the ‘stolen documents’ , another one of Slater’s bug bears.

    Reply
    • Like Winston, Slater has a rather unbalanced view on ‘stolen documents’ – it’s only a crime when it embarrasses them, not when they use them to attack people.

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  13th February 2020

        Do you know what the word stolen means ? I’ve never heard it compared to embarrassing before
        Slater’s no one’s puppy dog and has ….well best not to say exactly… But doesn’t mean he can’t be right

        Reply
  3. No Right Turn:

    This is simply dirty politics, and its unacceptable. Its also clearly unethical, and a violation of the Cabinet Manual requirement for Ministers to “behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical standards”. And for that, Winston should be sacked.

    http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2020/02/winston-does-dirty-politics.html

    Reply
    • duperez

       /  13th February 2020

      “Its also clearly unethical, and a violation of the Cabinet Manual requirement for Ministers to “behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical standards”.

      Peters should know that Ministers have standards to abide by. Journalists and the media do too. They’re called the ‘how many clicks’ standard.

      Reply
    • Duker

       /  13th February 2020

      NRT as usual takes it literally about ‘we took the photos’….Peter’s doesn’t even live in Tauranga anymore.
      Please people have some feet on planet reality

      Reply
      • Obviously Peters himself won’t have taken the photos. The RNZ article says that.

        When RNZ contacted Peters this evening to ask who “we” referred to, Peters said he didn’t know who took the photograph.

        “To say that I said that we physically went and took a photograph, that’s bulldust,” he said.

        But Peters seems to have clearly associated himself with the photos.

        And it’s been clear for some time that someone at The BFD has been shilling for Peters and NZ First as if they were paid PR people (which I think is quite likely).

        This just joins more dots. And letters, like NZF and BFD.

        Reply
        • David

           /  13th February 2020

          The transition from Peters and WO hating each other to a love fest is quite remarkable, Strangely they seem to share the same costly lawyer.
          Stuff and NZME are treading carefully due to the litigiousness and the costs associated with that and also Mr Peters fulsome support for their merger.
          And for someone to think Peters is doing a Facebook thing instead of an interview because he wants the truth out takes an amazing leap. Ardern if she had any sense should be offing him now, she will go down with him the silly woman.

          Reply
        • Duker

           /  13th February 2020

          I love it when dots become evidence….. Only when it’s Peter’s Party
          Photos are evidence too…far better evidence some would think, but no follow those dots and divert fro the photos and what they say

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  14th February 2020

            Wasnt Dirty Politics about political smears against another party being done by bloggers with background info secretly supplied by National – who used taxpayer paid staffers working for the PMs office.

            Since when did revealing a journalists sources by a party become a dirty politics sting? Especially when Guyon Espiner was using stolen documents from the party provided by an ousted party official

            Reply
            • ” Guyon Espiner was using stolen documents from the party provided by an ousted party official”

              Do you have evidence of this? If not that’s a potentially actionable accusation.

            • Duker

               /  14th February 2020

              Im joining the dots….. isnt that evidence enough !
              Photos show Espiner in the company of an ‘ousted party official’, whats that called – a family reunion?

              The word says ‘using’ , Espiner never stole anything of course

              If I downloaded all my employers invoices before I leaving the company and passed them onto a 3rd person, whats that called ?

            • Duker

               /  14th February 2020

              Heres the relevant section of the Crimes Act for Theft of Digital Information
              S249 Accessing computer system for dishonest purpose
              (1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who, directly or indirectly, accesses any computer system and thereby, dishonestly or by deception, and without claim of right,-
              (a) obtains any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration; or
              (b) causes loss to any other person.
              (2) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years who, directly or indirectly, accesses any computer system with intent, dishonestly or by deception, and without claim of right,-
              (a) to obtain any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration; or
              (b) to cause loss to any other person.

              Data is defined as property. Theres no suggestion they hacked the system but may have had authorised acess , but to pass onto a Journalist who ‘just happened’ to visit Tauranga

              And the legal summary is:
              The interesting thing about this section is that it applies to any of the following situations:
              (i) a person who, having no authorised access, unlawfully accessed a computer system for a dishonest purpose;
              (ii) a person who may have authorised access but used that access with intent to cause loss (financial or otherwise) or to achieve a financial gain; or
              (iii) a person (whether with or without authorised access) who initially accessed a computer system without a dishonest purpose, but whilst still accessing the system forms a dishonest purpose.
              https://www.adls.org.nz/for-the-profession/news-and-opinion/2013/10/25/theft-of-digital-information/

              Quite some dots you would think

            • If the invoices are evidence of illegal activity by the employer than it’s called valid information for journalists to consider writing about.

              If Winston Peters was offered documents about National Party donations do you think he would refuse to have anything to do with it?

          • Duker

             /  14th February 2020

            If there is evidence of illegal activity the first port of call is the Police.
            You have not pointed to any thing thats ‘illegal’ , rather its as many have pointed out its ‘constructed to operate within the boundaries of the law’ . There is no specific laws relating to Political Party ‘Foundations’, my view they should be included as related party entities.
            And the National Party shouldnt whitewash its MPs donations to hide whos giving money either, using the different disclosure levels.
            Shouldn’t you cover that?

            Wouldnt you call that comment about Peters getting National party donations a ‘diversion’ Peters may not be a practicing lawyer but he wouldnt ‘handle’ stolen documents’ . However its completely irrelevant as it hasnt happened here

            Reply
    • alloytoo

       /  15th February 2020

      No Right Turn like a broken clock is occasionally right.

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  15th February 2020

        Tell us when that happens…. Peter’s didn’t take the pictures so can’t have broken the cabinet manual….who thinks like that.
        NRT is a sort of reverse Trump..he lives in an alternate universe but really is beltway drone

        Reply
  4. duperez

     /  13th February 2020

    Maybe Peters has read and heard enough stuff from and about the fruitcake in the White House and seen the support and acclamation that has garnered here. A significant number think Trump is some sort of new age hero. A vote from a genius = a vote from a moron.

    As he plays games he’ll be aware of the tiny, tiny inconsistencies. They’re shown by the ‘don’t hear from the witnesses. Why should they talk?’ then the, ‘see there’s no evidence’ in the States. The ‘why should Todd Barclay talk to the cops? He’s entitled to not say anything’ to ‘those who know stuff about the child badly beaten in Flaxmere should be forced to talk’ suggests there’s an audience easy to count on.

    If he’s desperate enough he’ll try anything. Maybe voters in Northland are wacky enough to give him a chance but the Reti roading bs versus reality seems likely to rule.

    7:15
    https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=210889&page=6

    3:36
    https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=210902

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  14th February 2020

      Thats incoherent…. and no one has time to watch ‘on demand’ when you cant make a point other than ‘Its Trumps fault’

      Reply
      • duperez

         /  14th February 2020

        Sorry. I’ll make it simple.

        It is reasonable and okay for Peters to do anything no matter how whacky and weird or stupid. He might get votes from really dumb people who think his approach novel. As Trump does.

        That there are really dumb people is shown by the calls that cops should ‘make those in the know’ in the Flaxmere brutality talk. Some of the same said it was perfectly fine for Barclay to not talk to cops or have to talk to the cops. There are dumb people for Peters to appeal to.

        The clips were about the bullshit from Shane Reti, often repeated by his mates and believed by them and other dumb people. Peters won’t get the votes from those dumb people.

        Nothing is Trump’s fault. All he’s doing is plumbing the depths of the electorate. There’s gold there. Just like here.

        Reply
  5. Hawkeye

     /  13th February 2020

    Anybody that thinks our hero is not shilling for Peters (and has been for a few years now) is naive or so partisan they are incapable of offerings rational opinion on this subject.
    Labour and the Greens are really left with No choice. To have the big buffoon of the dirty politics era working for their coalition partner is untenable.
    Peters and probably Jones need to be sacked from their ministries first thing tomorrow morning and if they kick off then JA should get in the beemer and go tell the GG that we will have an election right now thanks very much.

    Reply
  6. artcroft

     /  14th February 2020

    My oath, its time Jacinda staged a coup and took the reins of govt from Peters. Remember Jacinda if you wrestle with a pig you just get dirty and the pig loves it.

    Reply
  7. This from Richard Harman at Politik (November 2018) may be pertinent:

    Dirty politics, Russell McVeagh and Winston Peters. The bizarre story of two high priced dinners

    One of the key players in the 2014 National Party “dirty politics” allegations appears to have become involved with NZ First.

    The Hawke’s Bay political consultant, Simon Lusk, attended two recent NZ First “business networking” evenings with NZ First Leader, Winston Peters.

    Lusk featured prominently in the “dirty politics” allegations along with his close associate, Cameron “Whaleoil” Slater.

    The news of Lusk’s involvement comes at the same time as one of his longest term clients, Jami Lee Ross, has announced that he will give his proxy vote to NZ First but that they will cast it with National.

    POLITIK has spoken to two business people who attended the functions.

    They both said Lusk appeared to be very busy during the events in some sort of administrative role.</blockquote.

    http://politik.co.nz/en/content/politics/1466/Dirty-politics-Russell-McVeagh-and-Winston-Peters-The-bizarre-story-of-two-high-priced-dinners-Winston-peters-Russell-McVeagh-Simon-Lusk-dirty-politics-Cameron-Slater.htm

    Reply
    • Jonty

       /  14th February 2020

      Harman pulled that story down.
      It is glorious to think the Slater Lusk political dynamos can poofinger Winston Peters who used the worst of his usually astute political judgment to be involved with them.
      Poetic even.

      Reply
    • Duker

       /  14th February 2020

      Pertinent ? So Harmon did what NZF is said to do this week, spilling the beans on who was with whom ?
      So its OK when journalists tell who was where , but not OK for it to be revealed by NZF where RNZ got its stolen documents from

      Reply
      • I haven’t seen any evidence that any documents have been stolen. Have you? Or do you just take Winston’s claims as gospel (you seem to preach them).

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  14th February 2020

          Pleeese. An ousted party President meets with a journalist who is drip feeding detailed confidential info from the same party.
          Thats listed under S249 of the Crimes Act :
          249 Accessing computer system for dishonest purpose
          Doesnt have to be getting money for it, just a ‘dishonest purpose’

          Espiner wasnt accessing NZF computer records himself, so some one passed them onto him. Theres evidence in photos of a connection with who did. And the other journalist in Tauranga at the same time . Are you suggesting it was all a coincidence

          Reply
          • Gerrit

             /  14th February 2020

            You weren’t as critical of Hager writing a book based on stolen emails.

            Note that the defense at the time was that it was “in the public interest” to let stolen emails be used in a book.

            Could the same “in the public interest” defense be not used in this case as well?

            Scroll down to the fifth comment in this thread.

            https://yournz.org/2019/05/31/hagers-whistle-blowing-versus-slaters-character-assassinations/

            “Hager has admitted to received illegally (stolen) material.
            Slater took it to the High Court and the judge ruled the political stuff was ‘in the public interest’ while the private/personal stuff wasnt . Hager followed that”

            Reply
            • Duker

               /  14th February 2020

              Hager wasnt meeting with the person who did the stealing, he was open about how he got the stolen data. ( anonymously in the mail) Plus he had a court ruling like I pointed out.
              Espiner didnt say anything, it was obvious the ex party president was the top level source and the photo from the NZF ‘supporter’ confirms it.
              Working with the ‘thief’ puts a whole new complexion on it.

            • Gerrit

               /  14th February 2020

              Duker, so one degree of separation is OK in your eyes? If the “stolen information” passes through another pair of hands it is all hunky dory?

              Good to know where the law precedent lies in the “stolen goods” and “in the public interest” .scenarios.

            • Gerrit

               /  14th February 2020

              You are making huge assumptions that the meeting was with the “thief”. The information may have arrived in a plain paper bag on the reporters desk (like Hagers stolen information). The meeting might have well been a “we have this information and is it correct” confirmation discussion.

              There is absolutely no concrete evidence information was handed over at that meeting. Despite a desperate attempt by NZ First leaders and supports trying to “link the dots”.

            • Duker

               /  14th February 2020

              Are you really that dumb? Anyway, evidence is beyond reasonable doubt – not ‘caught in the act’.
              WE dont have to ‘ see ‘ documents handed over’ to see a link between what is written by Espiner in his stories about secret NZ first documents at a high level and meeting a former Party President in his home town. Along with another journalist who has been writing about similar material. This isnt Wellington where they ‘might bump into each other’
              Theres other stories about letters provided to Stuff by Gray but they were his resignation letter – coincidence’

              Whats the big deal about who gave what anyway , a journalist has to get high level material from somewhere, hes been sprung with the ‘obvious source’.

            • Gerrit

               /  14th February 2020

              Luckily the courts rely on a higher level of provable evidence than your interpretation. Did anyone photograph or make a recording of the transaction? If not the only “evidence” is hearsay and “joining the dots” is hardly “beyond reasonable doubt” prove of guilt.

              Remember it is the accuser who has to provide the evidence to prove a crime. Defense could argue the only talk was about the weather.

              But if NZ First leaders and you are 100% sure of your facts and can prove them in a court of law, go for it.

              On the ninth of February Peters instructed the party secretary to lay a complaint with police. It is now the 14th. Has the complaint been laid?

              https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/top/409138/nz-first-to-lodge-police-complaint

              If not when?

              Or is it all a blow hard diversion and no complaint will be laid?

  8. Duker

     /  14th February 2020

    What a bizarre point of view , that evidence must be in ‘caught in the act’ category. Only a complete and utter fool wouldn’t know that some convictions have led to a life sentence and all the evidence was circumstantial.
    In this situation there are no charges either, I have ‘an honestly held opinion’ based on the circumstances and the photoevidence that a high level source has taken information from NZ First Foundation donors and given it too 2 journalists who have been writing stories using confidential information from the foundation.
    Your explanations are complete fiction and bad fiction at that…hate to think how you ran your business, where any silly nonsense would do.
    So what if a policecomplaint has been made, another reason for you to make up more silly nonsense…

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  14th February 2020

      Life imprisonment for murder..all circumstantial all evidence
      https://teara.govt.nz/en/1966/trials-notable/page-16
      I’m sure there are others. What say you to that Judge Gerrit

      Reply
      • Gerrit

         /  14th February 2020

        Well have NZ First taken the complaint to the Police or not? You have proof that will stand up in a court of law, you are duty bound to report it. So go on report the evidence you have. Bet you wont, nor will NZ First.

        I have fiction? Hahaha.

        Perhaps a mirror might show you who has fiction. A made up story where two and two make five because it suits your narrative.

        But like I said, take it to the police, will wait in anticipation and excitement of a complaint dragged before the courts.

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  14th February 2020

          Its not my problem . Im only commenting and no connection to NZF and making the obvious conclusions
          NZF said they have made a complaint, the police do investigations. Computer access logs will be analysed. A certain person with access to high level information inside NZF Foundation will be asked in due course and will say what he says…. we dont get a running commentary of how its going until time for a ‘perp walk.’
          More of your nonsense that complainants are expected to bring evidence with them.

          Reply
          • Gerrit

             /  14th February 2020

            Have NZ First made the complaint? Or is it still all talk?

            “More of your nonsense that complainants are expected to bring evidence with them.”

            So you expect the police to follow up every complaint without the complainant having to provide at least some evidence an offense occurred?

            Tell you how the Police investigation will go. They will interview each participant in the meeting and ask, what information changed hands? What did you talk about.

            Answers, Nothing changed hands and we talked about the weather.

            Police, not enough evidence, case closed.

            Another Peters blowhard expose.

            Reply
            • Dukeofurl

               /  15th February 2020

              There you go …running away over another full bore fantasy ..and it’s only about whether a complaint has been made.
              There is one thing I know about politicians is they know how to complain…but to you you wound yourself up over it..and for what?
              So what if Peter’s has outlasted Bolger, Shipley ,Clark and even Your hero Key.
              You don’t happen to be closer to the action in Tauranga are you?

  1. Winston Peters “we took the photos” used in ‘dirty politics’ post at The BFD — Your NZ – NZ Conservative Coalition

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