Did anyone else see the news about the ridiculous situation that unfolded in Hamilton yesterday where a bunch of pussy, limp wristed, politically correct, hemp suit wearing, latte supping police officers had to call for a Taser (from Auckland, delivered in a helicopter) to dislodge an unarmed (well he did have some sticks), half naked twat from the river bank. Hell, I though police carried batons….seems like they just like sticking them into pissed, naked sheilas.
FFS why didn’t they set the dogs on him? If he fell into the river and they had chosen to rescue him there was a boat on standby.The cold dunk in the Waikato would have cooled his anger in about 1 second and diminished his strength by about 60% real fast.
Oh hell, they should have just Tasered him and been done with.
Crusher Collins needs to leap on the gonads of those present.
Some people have posted in the comments and on Twitter that they think that the Westpac case is a massive cock-up on the prt of the bank and essentially are enjoying the romantic notion that Mr Thief just took a golden opportunity to have a lend of a bank.
Unfortunately for them banks don’t work the way that they imagine, and from their musings their imagination would appear to be extremely limited.
The key to all this is that this was a dud account going nowhere. It definitely would have been on a refer list which means that each morning all transactions for the account could have been notified to the account manager.
Funds transferring have to be cleared, the timing involved is too tight for this chump to realise that they had made a mistake, reef all the money and send it offshore all without getting found out.
So look at it this way. This is what you have to believe for it to fit the cock up theory.
Day 1: Dud Customer going broke asks for more credit and gets it
Day 1: Overdraft loaded for $10,000,000.00 instead of $100,000.00, this would almost certainly have exceeded the authority of everyone at the branch level and required head office approval. Also presumes that the systems at Westpac allow Support Centre staff to actually load an O/D for $10,000,000.00 (Cock up 1)
Day 1: Overdraft loading checking misses mistake (Cock up 2)
Day 2: Customer notices mistake the very next day and thinks to himself I’ll have a bit of that just on the spur of the moment.
Day 2: Account manager misses that Dud Customer now has $10 million limit on O/D (Cock up 3)
Day 2: Sends in to the bank or goes in to the bank and fills out numerous forms to split up and transfer funds off-shore
Day 2: He needs to do all this before 3pm to have all transactions to occur on same day.
Day 2: All those forms get actioned sending all the funds offshore to different accounts.
Day 2: Customer books flights for next day
Day 3: Account manager misses all the transactions for up to $10 million on his refer list of dud customers (Cock up 4)
Day 3: Dud Customer checks all the money is gone. It won’t show overseas yet as it takes up to 3-4 days to pass through the processing bank to the receiving bank. This is important. Westpac may process its transactions through HSBC but he may have sent his funds to Who Flung Dung Bank. WFD bank doesn’t get the funds until HSBC ships them to them.
Day 4: Customer skips out
Day 4: Account Manager still doesn’t notice his customer is now over his arrangements (Cock up 5)
I don’t know about you but that is just too implausible. All of the Fraud managers and bankers I have spoken to today laugh at the mere suggestion of the cock-up theory.
This was setup and orchestrated by people working in collusion with Mr Thief. They knew the processes, they knew the systems and they knew just how long they had before alarm bells went ringing. Unfortunately for them they didn’t do this over a long weekend or holiday and so Westpac was able to reef funds back that were sitting with the processing banks awaiting clearance. If they had waited for this weekend they may well have got more.
Me, if I was going to do this I’d do it over Christmas/New Year or Easter and I would pass literally thousands of transactions through various banks and branches UPI/Suspense Returns Accounts and high transaction customers, assembling and dissembling before ultimately arriving in a good well established bona fide account ready for off-shoring. Then I would send it all using some strategies that I can’t blog about because to do so woulld break a few laws. of course for all this to succeed I would have identified a suitable insider to assist in the processing. Given the parlous pay bank staff get motivating them to assist would have been easy. Also given the terrible effect methamphetamine has on our society it would have been a simple case of identifying a meth-head bank staffer and “assisting” them with their problem.
Westpac probably don’t appreciate me being this forthright but then they should have thought about that 5 years ago when they decided to be a bunch of c**ts to me.
Cock-up or Conspiracy? you tell me, but I’m going with conspiracy.
I have refrained from commenting on the inside job at Westpac that the media are reporting as some sort of romantic bank heist.
Right now they are aiding and abetting a cover-up by Westpac.
Why do I say that? Well because I probably know more about money laundering, anti-money laundering systems, and banking systems than all of the MSM combined plus the plonkers at the Police investigating this.
I won’t tell you how precisely I do know all that, because mainly I can’t legally tell you. Suffice to say I have worked in Thailand, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Hongkong, New Zealand and Australia in exactly this area.
1. Westpac is lying, this wasn’t a mistake. It involves at least 3 staff colluding with “thief”.
2. This was planned with inside knowledge of banking procedures, specifically at Westpac.
3. The MSM doesn’t get it when it comes to the banking system.
4. Money can’t “disappear”. It can all be traced because of the immutable laws of accounting that say for every debit there MUST be a credit.
5. Did I mention Westpac are lying?
6. $10 million ain’t enough. Especially if you are on the run.
7. I see in today’s paper that a Westpac staffer is seeking counselling, I bet it is with a lawyer.
8. The three cops in Wellington with their Excel spreadsheets that constitutes our anti-money laundering expertise will be scratching their heads with this one.
Now let me tell you that it just isn’t believeable in any way that this was a mistake. The PR folk at Westpac are to be commended though for giving the head fraud guy so much interference so he can start ripping arms off quietly. This guy is good, he knows his stuff and there will be nervous staff waiting for their turn in the windowless office.
Now, in order to get even a $10,000 o/d let alone a $10M one, which BTW you just don’t run as a Petrol Station you need to have paper filled out. Westpac, if they continue to say it is a mistake, need to show us the paper that says $10,000. Then there is the checking report for everything that is loaded. So if the paper says $10,000 and the report says $10,000,000 the checking officer will be very worried unless they have already skipped.
Then there are the discretionary limits. You can’t just load a $10,000,000 O/D and who has one anyay unless you are a very, very large company. My sources tell me that he was already into them for $6.5 million so there is no way that this account wasn’t on a refer list of some sort or if the station was failing as suggested then for sure he was being “managed” which usually means Debt Recovery Unit. Now I know those guys too and they aren’t nice fellows. So it is almost beyond reason that someone inside Westpac wasn’t involved in at least the loading of the “mistake”, or in the “checking” of the mistake” or in the “authorising” of the “mistake”.
And we haven’t even got to examining the collusion that must have been involved to get it out of the country. Now if you have ever sent money offshore you know you don’t do it with Internet Banking. There are forms that you fill out. Here is one. Yes it is Westpac Paper. Yes it is real.
You don’t get to send funds offshore unless it is cleared funds. You don’t get to strip your account that we are pretty sure is “managed” without it showing on a refer list of some sort. We also know from reporting that the money was split up. It must have been otherwise it would all be back by now. The more you split it up the more suspicious it looks, and even so if you reduce it to 10 lots of $1 million the person processing the forms would have had alarm bells ringing, unless of course on of those forms transfers the funds to their own account offshore.
You see there just cannot be any logical explanation for all of these”mistakes” to have happened to just one account. It isn’t possible.
Westpac should come clean and tell us what really happened. They will have good idea by now. There will be staff involved for sure. The fact that they haven’t reefed it all back suggests good knowledge of how to move funds about.
As smart as they have all been they haven’t been that smart. Everyone knows if you want to tuck a bank you do it before a long weekend, the longer the better. Easter being the best or the happy coincidence of Christmas and Boxing day either preceeding directly or following directly a weekend. That way you get an added benefit of three days later another four days with banking systems worldwide on a go slow essentially for two weeks straight. If you were smart then the funds will be long gone, dissembled and reassembled for the perpetrator to strollin on the first available banking day and take it all in covertible securities.
This is an inside job for sure, Westpac are just keeping schtum and the media through their fuckwittedness are helping them.
The Human Rights Commission was right. The Electoral Finance Act did have a dramatic effect on freedom of speech with political party donations well down on the previous year.
The Greens are having a cry because National had money in the bank, Labour continues to re-write history and the only party that didn’t breach the stupid law did what was required by all concerned with freedom of speech and repealed the Act.
Sure it is a great video but Cowell must have known all about her ability before she even got onto the stage. Nothing happens on that show without his stage managing it to the nth degree. This is Paul Potts all over again, a stitch up and this time using social media.
Still, Susan Coyle can sing, you don’t expect it and that makes a great story but I still think we are being had here. I say all power to Susan Coyle but lets have some honesty around the show.
Veteran investor Olly Newland says he is scandalised by the fees banks charge struggling homeowners seeking to move from fixed to lower floating rates. He says it’s an outrage that banks making multi-million dollar profits prefer to drive people to the wall than give them a break.
“They’re just merciless – and they’re supposed to share the pain.”
Olly would know bettter than most the law surrounding contracts and that is what a mortgage is, a contract. A fixed rate mortgage is a contract to supply you with money at a fixed interest rate for a fixed amount of time.
This is now where we get to numpty-nomics. The Numpties out there fix their loan rates generally when interest rates are on the rise as teh reserve Bank increases rates to counter inflation. Then when rates start to drop these numpties want to all jump ship to lower interest rates. In legal terms what they want to do is break their contract with the bank.
That is when we get these stupid stories about numpties hurting and crying as they struggle with their high interst rates. Interst rates, mind you, that they were perfectly happy with until everyone elses started dropping.
You also didn’t hear them clamouring to break their contracts and get higher rates when they were on lower ones did you? Not bloody likely….then the bank had to suck it up.
Olly Newland seems to want the bank to suck it up on this one too. Well fuck them and all the other numpty borrowers…..as Cactus would say RTFC. Read The Fucking Contract.
It is ironic that it is Kiwibank’s Bruce Thompson that has to explain numpty-nomics to the paper and to the masses.
break costs are a transfer of actual costs from the bank to the customer who is seeking to break the contract. Not passing on the costs is a direct loss to the bank.
“The bank takes out its own contract to finance the loan and if you break your contract, then the bank contract must also be paid out.”
Owen McShane has, in todays Herald, utter slain the weaseling of Brian Rudman and put to bed some of the lies and obfuscations surrounding climate change and emissions trading.
He dismisses the need for a wide-ranging review because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) tells us the science is settled, and the British Government’s Stern Review tells us climate change demands an urgent response.
And yet I suspect that if anyone told our Government to adopt a Budget written by the World Bank, Rudman would be equally up in arms.
Exactly, everyone would be screaming if we had to set our budget by World bank standards, yet we seem to think that everything is ok if the IPCC decides to tell us all that the science is settled.
There are scores of papers in peer-reviewed journals challenging the hypothesis that anthropogenic actions, and in particular, the burning of fossil fuels, are causing dangerous levels of global warming.
The select committee could also focus on science relevant to New Zealand. Rudman might like to find a peer-reviewed paper containing a simple equation describing the change in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from turning forestry into perennial pasture in New Zealand. We simply do not know the size and nature of the biological transfers or even whether the final outcome is positive or negative.
How can we base any form of taxation or subsidy on such ignorance?
And if we are determined to tax our nine million belching cows why don’t we require the Indians to tax their 290 million cows and buffalo? And what about taxing all those methane emitting termites, rice paddies, wetlands and mangroves? Why pick on us?
Yes, therein lies the obfuscations that a climate change enthusiast will slap down on the table like a royal flush. They always claim the “peer-reviewed” papers prove it. Yet the plain ignore and continue to ignore the building body of evidence that “climate change” is a scam. As with any taxation regime, exemptions nullify any benefit, thus it is incredulous that we are trying to embark on saving the planet when Russia, China and India either won’t, can’t be arsed or plainly refuse to also do so.
Most economists prefer a straightforward tax on fossil fuels because no one actually knows how to calculate most of the carbon dioxide footprints that the emission traders assume to be correct. It’s worth remembering that “carbon credit” trading was invented by Enron. Do we really want another round of life-savings to disappear down a “carbon-black-hole”?
Actually he does say more and sets out why the Emissions trading Scheme must be repealed.
The New Zealand Herald properly campaigned about the undue haste with which the Electoral Finance Act was rammed through Parliament. Compared to the emissions trading scheme the electoral act was a model of procedure.
Our constitutional conventions require that all bills presented to Parliament be supported by a regulatory impact statement. Such a statement should address three issues:
First, that there is a real problem.
Second, that all relevant alternative solutions have been identified and considered.
And third, that the proposed law will solve the problem better than all the alternatives, and its benefits will exceed its costs.
These assessments should be undertaken diligently, impartially and from a non-partisan position. The previous Government obscured the first, evaded the second, and ignored the third.
It also breached constitutional conventions by forcing through a bill containing over 1000 amendments with just three days notice.
Many hope the new Government will set a higher standard of parliamentary procedure, which should deliver better informed, and more soundly based policy.
That is the slam dunk. Owen McShane is right, this Act should be repealed as unconstitutional and illegal. Oh for an Upper House.
NZ First plan to sell Kiwibank under fire – New Zealand First leader Winston Peters’ plan to sell Kiwibank is “erratic and confusing” and would risk destroying the bank, Progressives leader Jim Anderton says. Mr Peters yesterday put forward a radical proposal to float shares… [NZ Herald Politics]
The Labour First Axis has come under attack from within its own ranks today after the Greens and Jim Anderton attacked Winston’s flip flop over kiwibank.
Just a few short weeks ago Winston Raymond peters, 63, List MP of no fixed abode and proven liar was seen front and centre signing a pledge not to sell Kiwibank and today he has resiled from that by suggesting that Kiwibank be listed and shares sold to the public.
The internecine warfare of the Axis has now broken into public view and these people want us to trust them?
One of the fun things about blogging is catching people making shit up. Having a good memory for the body politic helps and so does a good working knowledge of outside the box search techniques. The only hassle when dealing with a bunch of pathological liars like New Zealand First is to line up all their statements and wade through them to find the truth, something that is in short supply when dealing with these pricks.
Since all the subtefuge of Winston Raymond Peters, 63, List MP of no fixed abode has come to the fore there have been literally hundreds of articles and stories posted on MSM sites, let alone blogs.
The MSM just continually seems to miss several key points and never seems to follow up and reconcile what has been said in the past by key figures.
A case in point is the current details surrounding the missing declaration of $80,000 of donations to New Zealand First from the Spencer Trust in the 2007 year.
Firstly Dail Jones sent the media off on a wild goose chase the other day when he said that he wasn’t the President then, the media all forgot that it was Dail Jones who started this all off when he announced to all and sundry that New Zealand First had got a large donation and that he as “president” had trotted off to the bank to find out where it came from. Dail Jones was the President at this time, end of story.
Now about the $80,000 that has remained undeclared. Remember when this all broke because Dail Jones opened his gob. Well various explanations were proffered, some from WRP, 63, LMPONFA and this one from Brent Catchpole;
Brent Catchpole, NZ First treasurer, says the almost $100,000 that appeared in the NZ First accounts came from another party account. It had been transferred from a high-interest bearing account into a cheque account so the party could present the $158,000 it was ruled to have wrongfully spent in the 2005 election to Starship Hospital. Jones saw the transfer figure on a statement and didn’t understand that it was simply a transfer across accounts.
New Zealand First MP and former party president Dail Jones says he treated the money as an anonymous donation because he had no information to suggest otherwise. He says if the Spencer Trust knew it had paid the money it could, and should, have come out and told him that fact.
The problem Dail Jones and WRP, 63, LMPONFA have is that they declared that they received NO donation, nil, nada, zip, none at all from anyone, anonymous or not, for 2007.
Quite simply the word of anyone associated with Winston First cannot be trusted, ever. Their first inclination when confronted with even the simplest of questions is to lie like flatfish.
Dail Jones is lying, Brent Catchpole is lying, WRP, 63, LMPONFA most definately is a liar. About the only person not lying is Grant Currie, the trustee of the Spencer Trust. He isn’t lying because he has been far more forthcoming with information and he can likely see that some people are going to go to jail and he is making sure it won’t be him.
How long before Helen Clark pulls the plug, or is she also lying about what she knows? Helen Clark must tell New Zealand why she continues to stick up for a bunch of lying, charlatans. The old saying that you are who hang out with is coming home to roost for Helen Clark who may well end up in the cell next to Winston. One thing for sure is going to happen when the house of cards comes tumbling down, all the players are going to dob each other in and Winston most definately is going to take Clark to the dock with him.