Nobody believes your supercilious bs mate.
Now just hush for the live of God.
Printable View
Excerpts from Bobb Carr's letter to our esteemed foreign minister.
Seems fair enough.Quote:
We place you on notice that we are now in the process of instructing New Zealand lawyers to advise in relation to the immediate commencement in New Zealand of defamation proceedings against you," the letter read. "…The Statements are indefensibly defamatory of our client and have no basis in fact. In that regard, our client has never had any business relationship with any Chinese entity, nor has he ever served on the Board of any Chinese company. "Further, he has never acted as an adviser or consultant to any Chinese company, nor has he ever been in receipt of any income from any Chinese shareholding or investment consultancy."
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/polit...med-shill.html
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Seriously that's the best response you can come up with? Some people have the benefit of enough wisdom to know when to give up and keep their mouths shut.
Others....
I'm sure everyone is as bored as I am with this ridiculous tit for tat. So I'm on my lap top now buddy so see ya.
No doubt you will keep trying to bait & engage like you have until now. But that's just because like the great song Zombie goes.
I'm in your head, in your head...
Well let's face it, there's plenty of room in there.
Those are highly specific refutations and not necessarily all-encompassing. It doesn't mention employment relationships, nor does it define 'Chinese company' (what is a Chinese company?) and the refutation regarding receipts only include those from shareholdings and investment consultancy. That excludes business consultancy, political consultancy and many other forms of consultancy - not forgetting there are many other forms of remuneration. It would be better to have a wide ranging and all encompassing refutation rather than one that is highly specific and narrowly defined.
So far this sounds like dogs barking at each other. Interesting that Carr never sued the AFR for similar statements - I wonder why...?
Aren't we missing the bigger point - why is some formerly employed foreigner coming here and telling Kiwis what we can and can't do (or should or should not do) with our foreign policy? He can piss right off to where he came from. He's not part of any Government delegation that I'm aware of so for others to think this is some sort of massive international incident should stick to watching James Shaw videos.
Well it's more interesting that it appears Carr is prepared to go to court over what Peters said. So perhaps what Peters said over stepped what the AFR reported.
We will find out.
Carr was asked his opinion of AUKUS and he gave it. Nothing wrong in that even if you don't agree with his opinion. He isn't representing Australia, unlike Peters and Carr has knowledge of the subject.
Apparently Peters doesn't, or that's what he is telling us.
More revelations about Hysterical Hipkins leaving yet more mess for the new government to sort out.
This time, Hipkins as Minister of Education hid a 300% cost blowout to over $400m for the integration of 2 schools (Project Te Tātoru o Wairau - WTF it meant) which he decided to go ahead.
Project was scrapped after $25m was spent on consultancy & design work. Just add it to the $228m light rail cost etc etc.
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/05/h...e_blowout.html
https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/3...-out-more-400m