Thursday, May 2, 2019


Back a few months ago Lees-Galloway gained a certain notoriety for granting permanent residence to convicted drug-dealer Karel Sroubek after spending less the 45 minutes skimming the file.    Fast forward to just this week where he declined to grant residency to Nelson volunteer fire-fighter Steve Webster despite over 50,000 New Zealanders signing a petition in support of his application.    The details are here.

Spot the difference .... convicted drug dealer gets the nod.   Volunteer fire-fighter given the flick.   One can well understand why Lees-Galloway, poor little rich boy from King's College said, in his maiden speech, that his parents moved from Palmerston North to a neighboring electorate just so they didn't have to vote for him.   Clearly they had him well and truly figured.

Sroubek is awaiting his appeal to the Immigration Protection Tribunal (IPT) to be heard.   In the meantime he has submitted a new application for residency after having obtained a passport in his real name.    Dollars to donuts the 'system' will bend over backwards to ensure Sroubek is given every opportunity to plead his case ... after all, he has 'friends' in high places.     Pity our volunteer fire-fighter Steve doesn't enjoy the same good fortune.

Updated ... it is reported that Steve's daughter Gail has now given up on her dream to join the NZ Police and will return to England.   Nice one Minister .... the low-life remains ... and one of the good gals leaves while you do a Pontius Pilate ... figures.


Paulus said...

Understand that the name Lees-Galloway is not the name he was born with or schooled at Kings.
The name Lees is taken from his Grandparents and Galloway is from his long bearing wife's name.
Assume she has forgiven him for his "believed" affair in Parliamentary circles ?
At College he was considered a little sit too.

Snowflake said...

Gosh you're slimey Paulus. All lathered up with impotent rage, just like "Veteran". How's Jami-lee?

The Veteran said...

Flake ... unable to address the substance of the post so you resort to meaningless invective. You and Lees-Galloway and Jami-Lee would make grand bedfellows.

Snowflake said...

I addressed the substance of the post to the same extent that Slimey Paulus did. There’s no substance to it in any event. The guy had no right to stay here because he didn’t do what he said he would. End of. I know he’s white and everything, and that holds weight with you lot, but I’m afraid that’s no longer policy.

The Veteran said...

Flake ... no you didn't and saying you did is meaningless drivel. I'll make it easy for you ... which of my allegations are wrong

# That Sroubek is a convicted drug dealer
# That Lees-Galloway granted him residency after only a cursory look at his file
# That Sroubek has friends in high places
# That Webster has been a model citizen in the time he has spent in NZL. A contributing member of society
# That 50,000 signed the petition supporting his residency ... actually I stuffed up there; the correct number is 53,991
# That Lees-Galloway is poor little rich boy with a chip the size of a log on his shoulders

Sroubek is white; Webster is white ... what's your feekin point.

You're on the wrong side of this argument and your bluster shows its hurting.

Snowflake said...

OK, your second point is incorrect, residency has been revoked. The third point is simply an unctuous lie. The fourth point is irrelevant so is the fifth, and the sixth is an attempted smear. There you go. And there are literally thousands of foreigners here who want to live here but can’t. Some of the ones that look like you, you go into bat for. The others you would deport. Now that’s a fact.

Psycho Milt said...

You're making an assumption there that The Veteran is Pākeha. I don't know whether the assumption is correct or incorrect, but it is nevertheless an assumption.

Psycho Milt said...

That's the thing about leaving final decisions up to ministers. Maybe you like the minister, and therefore his decisions, or maybe you don't, and don't. Either way, as long as we leave final decisions up to the minister, some people are going to make political bullshit stories out of the decisions. I don't recall Woodhouse's tenure with any fondness whatsoever.

Which is relevant to posts on the merits or otherwise of Iain Lees-Galloway's character. I could do an entire series of posts on the personal shortcomings of the sad sacks of shit currently occupying the opposition benches, but most readers would notice a conflict of interest there that would be reflected in how much value they placed in my personality assessments of the relevant MPs. Better to just not go there (with apologies for the multiple times I have gone there).

Johno said...

ILG did grant residence. That it was subsequently revoked when ILG was forced to back down doesn't change this.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...


Kindly remind me again how he was 'forced to back down.

Snowflake said...

Wow, so he reconsidered his decision decided he made a mistake and corrected it! SCANDAL! Desperate much?

As for the other guy, I’m no expert but I’m pretty sure that getting 50k signatures and being an apparently nice person aren’t policy requirements. Are you saying they should be?

The Veteran said...

Flake ... let me spell it out simply for you. Lees-Galloway, odious fellow that he is, granted residency to a convicted drug dealer at the twink of an eye and exercising the discretion available to him as Minister. Why would that be?

Anything to do with a certain Richard Hardcore, friend of Sroubeck and with the PMs personal cell-phone number on his speed dial?????

Fast forward to Steve Webster, all-round good guy and has proved it. Why didn't the Minister exercise the same discretion? ... answer see above.

Milt ... thank you for pointing out 'his' assumption. I don't parade it.

Psycho Milt said...


In the absence of any evidence suggesting that might be the case, no nothing to do with that.


Well, it certainly would make a much more entertaining movie plot if the PM and cabinet ministers were in league with criminal drug dealers, but the much more mundane and also much more likely answer is that in one case the minister had a report saying the person had reason to fear for his life if he were deported back to his own country, and in the other he had a report saying the person doesn't meet the criteria.

Not least: if a minister were making such decisions on their personal view of whether the applicant's a good bloke or not, that would be a crap minister who should be relieved of decision-making at the earliest opportunity.

gravedodger said...

Or maybe there are flaws in the guide lines the the minister works under.

It is reasonably clear how Sroubeck's file came to the Minister it had lotsa heat and needed gloves for the Public servant.
It is a greater mystery why Webster was declined, The business he and his missus bought as qualification had fraudulent aspects according to the original published accounts. No resulting prosecutions as the perpetrators had absconded. Their subsequent actions and behaviours seem to indicate some room for credit there.