 With your help, we can continue to fight for freedom. This is not possible without your generosity. Join our quest for the truth and our freedom. Simply visit www.realitycheck.radio forward slash donate to make a difference today. Now it's time for CAM's buddies. This week, we'll find out what they think about the failure of the sport office cases and whether or not they think it was election interference. My producer has them all lined up and ready to go. Let's go now to CAM's buddies. Welcome to CAM's buddies, Miles. Good to have you back on the show. Good afternoon. Thank you, CAM. And I think Winston's having a good afternoon too. Yeah, the news came out that a serious fraud office has lost the third case, this one against New Zealand first. Of course, they lost the case against Jamie Lee Ross and the National Party in the donations and same with the Labour Party donations. Now they've gone three strikes and they're out. Do you think this is a case of election interference by the serious fraud office? Well, it's hard to look past that. I remember when they were first charged, the media went into a bloodlust feeding frenzy, thinking this would be the end. And I mean, I remember thinking, hmm, there's a lot more to this than meets the eye. And I'm kind of wonder whether law fear is the new weapon that is being deployed against some of the smaller parties. Well, that's sort of what we're seeing in the United States against Donald Trump, isn't it? There's these ridiculous lawsuits with activist judges and various different law enforcement authorities that are conducting law fear. Because they think it's gonna affect Donald Trump's prospects of being re-elected. And we're starting to see this creep into New Zealand, in particular with the serious fraud office. And they're a statutory organization that's supposed to be fair and impartial, but it certainly looks to me like they're trying to fit up political parties, shoehorning criminal charges into what are really electoral act defences with much less penalties. I mean, they were trying to put these people in jail with these cases. It's appalling. And I highly commend Winston and New Zealand First for fighting this because they've won. Now, honestly, there needs to be some sort of recognition that Winston and New Zealand First have been dragged through the mud with these charges. And no matter what happens, if you fling mud, mud sticks. And I can think of a number of journalists who were particularly delighted themselves in flinging handfuls of mud. And it's actually proven that the editors got together and decided, oh no, we're not gonna say anything about New Zealand First and the lead up to the election. So we've got that, that's already a fact. We've got these court cases that came to nothing. That's a fact. When are people gonna realize that Winston, despite all of this and New Zealand First, despite all of this, are in government and I believe Winston's doing a great job. And I think that New Zealand First and Shane Jones and Kati Costello, man, that's a group that's hard to beat. Yeah, I mean, you're right about the media. They gleefully reported all this. They jumped all over it. Nairia mentioned about the Labour Party donations, you know, prosecution. We're gleeful about seeing the demise of Jamie Lee Ross and jumped all over the National Party. It seems to me the media are selective in how they produce this. It's interesting on Tuesday that the news came out at 11 o'clock. I was on Twitter about five past 11 posting the judgment. It wasn't until several hours later that we started to see the mainstream media catch up with the news. Just a appalling editorial slant that's going on here and the media, along with the Serious Court Office, have inserted themselves into the political process and tried to affect an election outcome that they didn't want. They didn't want New Zealand First and in 2020, it worked. They were out. And you know, this was the only thing that hamstrung them. They came within a whisker of being re-elected. If they hadn't had this news from the Serious Court Office or announcing it in the middle of the election campaign, then they may well have got re-elected and we might have had a different outcome in 2020. Correct. And whose head needs to roll for this? I mean, who is going to bite the bullet and resign because the Serious Court Office got it so wrong. You know, my gut tells me nothing will happen. Well, that's just an appalling lack of responsibility. And I call on the head of the Serious Court Office to do a mere culpa and offer his resignation forthwith because this is a whole disgraceful episode that needs to be nipped in the bud here in New Zealand. Well, I actually think something will happen because the very people who are victims of this appalling prosecution and gerrymandering attempt by the Serious Court Office and the media are now in power and are in the positions where they can appoint or de-appoint or unappoint these people in these positions. And so there's a delicious irony there. I can imagine the next cabinet meeting is going to be just incredible with Winston Peters on the warpath. There needs to be certainly a few sackings and listen, it's not just limited to the Serious Court Office. Oh, no, oh, no. In my belief, I think there needs to be a little bit wider net cast and there needs to be a few more people who need to have, don't come Monday card handed to them. Yep, exactly. All right, Miles, I better let you go. I know you've got another thing to go to. We'll talk again next week. Have a good Easter. Thank you, Cam, and go Winston. Yeah, all good. OK, bye. Good afternoon, Linley. Welcome to Cam's Buddies. And boy, have I got a topic for you to discuss tonight. Yes, what is it? Well, it's about the New Zealand first case that the Serious Fraud Office appealed trying to overturn the judgment in the High Court and the Court of Appeal has told them to go fly a kite. But it rather raises the question that back in 2020, when they first prosecuted the two gentlemen from New Zealand first, that was this election interference on behalf of the Serious Fraud Office or who actually benefited from New Zealand first being bundled out of Parliament as a result of the negative news that swelled around because of this. Hmm. Well, I'll tell you, I'll have to shake the cobwebs from a memory on this one, because it was a wee while ago, wasn't it? Yeah. How long did it cover? We've got, what, three cases or...? Well, there's three cases that the Serious Fraud Office prosecuted national party people, including Jamie Lee Ross, and they lost that case. They then appealed some of those aspects of it and lost that case. They also prosecuted some Labour Party people for donations and lost that case. And of course, there's now this New Zealand first case which happened in 2020 and probably caused New Zealand first to be bundled out of Parliament to the benefit of Jacinda Ardern. So this is three cases where the Serious Fraud Office has looked at electoral act offences and didn't charge any of them with electoral act offences. In fact, they charged them with crimes act offences saying that they defrauded people, but there were no victims and nobody complained. So, you know, I have to think there's political interference here somewhere. Well, on top of all that detail, the other point is the ACFO had two cracks, didn't they? And so it was not once they had a go, but twice. And I think that each time... I think that each time it was near the election campaign, I think 2020 and 2023 were sort of... They were slotted in so that they had a really influential effect on the campaigning for the election. That was my opinion of it. Yeah, well, you're actually absolutely right. The 2023 appeal was announced by the Serious Fraud Office again in the election period. So, you know, there they are again. And they've just lost that, of course. You know, here we are six months later and they lost that appeal at great expense to the two victims of this misfeasance from the Serious Fraud Offence. Yes, I know. That's absolutely right. But, of course, they think that they've achieved... Or they thought they would achieve their end goal, didn't they? That was the thing. It's really good news that they have failed. Is this a case of the deep state operating against New Zealand First and Winston Peters? Well, I think it is. And, you know, I sort of touched on that on our last conversation. This stuff starts way, way, way up the top. And I think most of our listeners actually know that. And they're never going to give up on Winston Peters. He's sort of the Trump of New Zealand, you know. They like to persecute him and make an example of him and make us all feel like we're scared out of our socks because look what they can do to, you know, people in power. And I think they're scaring us as well. But I don't know. I think this went from complaint to the Electoral Commission, to the police, to the SFO. Who put the complaint in? Well, that's right. I think the Electoral Office put the complaint in. I think they took it upon themselves to say that there was a fraud on somebody. But no one was defrauded. Nobody was deprived of money. It echoes the Trump case of where he's been charged with fraud in New York. You know, no one was, no one lost any money. There's no victim. And yet somehow Donald Trump was prosecuted. You know, we're seeing the same thing here, aren't we? It's an absolute mirror case. In my opinion, there's no doubt that it was politically motivated, none at all. And I remember the ructions in the racing industry, which is something I'm involved in. I remember people claiming they'd never donate or vote for Winston Peters ever again. They were absolutely furious on it. And of course, although Winston Peters wasn't actually a person charged, it was cleverly constructed to fall upon him. And the media story, as I recall, read very badly. It was trial by media. And they ran a political soap opera, really, for absolutely ages. Now, to my surprise, the media, which I think was RNZ, actually named wealthy donors the amounts given and where that money was even lodged. I didn't think that was actually allowed, but they printed that in great detail. And they ran it like, really, it ran like unchallenged evidence of fraud in every detail. Yeah. And they didn't. Yeah, that's exactly right. They named and shamed people for daring to participate in democracy by donating to a politician or a party of their choice. And that was what it was designed to do, was designed to starve New Zealand first of support first and secondly, starve them of money. And I think it's outrageous that these forlorn prosecutions, of which they've lost every single one of them, seemed to be going unpunished. Well, I just hope that New Zealand first has a crack at them over it. I really do, because they're completely out of order. And this branding Winston Peters goes way back, and this is a perfect example. And they missed no opportunity in adding paint to their untrustworthy brand that they'd created in Peters. And then they were able to tout fraud. I mean, everybody thought it was true. And I think that the prosecution said that Winston Peters could be viewed as an uncharged conspirator, a damning statement. Exactly. I mean, it's activist judges who are going against the evidence that they're putting their personal political views into judgments, just appalling. No, I didn't think those things were allowed. I really didn't. And they've just gone for his jugular all the way through. And yes, it did affect his ability to campaign, you know? I mean, the other thing that the media had never, ever printed to my knowledge was the reason that New Zealand first went with Labour. Well, yeah, exactly. People just think that, oh, well, he was just untrustworthy, so he jumped the ship. But as far as I know, National was very, very hardy and negotiating with New Zealand first and wouldn't give them anything that they wanted. And they thought that they had New Zealand first by the throat. But they, you know, they took on a very surprising move and jumped to Labour, which I think is the last thing that Bill English expected. Well, Bill English has never been a strategist, and to be fair, I mean, he's a great finance minister. But he's never been a good political strategist. No, well, that's a perfect example of it. But that's why it happened. You know, it wasn't a case of Winston Peters. It was a case of his whole caucus, and they couldn't get what they wanted at all. So that's never been printed to my knowledge, but it may have, and I may not have seen it. But hey, the quote of the decade goes to Judith Collins, doesn't it, of National. Some time ago, when all these court cases were flying around the place, and she thought Winston Peters was going to be charged, she said. And you remember this one? He was on his last legs, and the National Caucus didn't want a bar of him. Well, you know, I think that... Famous last... Famous last words, but you know, I think that Winston Peters should be playing tub-thumping again from Chimba Wumba often, because, you know, they hop him down, and he gets right back up again. He certainly does. Is that charge you've had gone ahead? No, of course not. The band? No. No. The band doesn't exist anymore, and the intellectual property rights sit with Sony. You know, just Sony really want to take on the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand over, you know, basically a song that everyone had forgotten about, and Winston Peters made famous again. He's actually increased their revenue and their sales. So there's no harm, there's no damages, and it would be a hilarious court case. And of course, Winston Peters' long-time friend and lawyer, Brian Henry, would be delighted to take a defence of a copyright issue. He's an intellectual property barrister who knows the law inside out. And I know personally, I had breakfast with him last week, and he was laughing his head off, saying, I hope they do come after Winston. But it's going to be a fantastic court case. Oh, it's just absolutely unbelievable, isn't it? Totally. Totally unbelievable. Absolutely unbelievable. But no, they'll never change. No, it's a travesty, though, that the media and the Serious Fraud Office inserted themselves into a political debate trying to affect the outcome of an election. And in 2020, they were successful about that. They were. They absolutely were. And it's absolutely a miracle that New Zealand first got back in this time. You know, it took a hell of a lot of work to get them in because, leading up to near the election, the media were running all these horrible things in the paper, you know, that really did read badly. They did it again. I don't think they had a court case. Yeah, we've actually got Mark Jennings from Newsroom on record as saying that the media all got together and were discussing whether or not they should cover Winston Peters at all because they didn't like his politics. They didn't like him. And they really questioned whether or not the media should cover him, which is an appalling indictment. And I don't think he realised what he actually said. He said the quiet bit out loud, really. No, they're half-baked as far as I'm concerned. But that's the way it is. But anyway, thanks to all the people that could see through it, New Zealand first did get in. And I think they're very lucky they did because, well, David Seymour has got some things that he has a firm stand on. But between Christopher Luxon and himself, there's a lot of stuff that they would not have stood up for. Yeah, exactly. And I think it's kudos to Peters' negotiating skills that they got what they did get through in that coalition agreement. And now, the National has to honour those agreements, just like New Zealand First has to honour them. And the ACT Party has to honour them. And it's up to the news media to hold the politicians to account to ensure that those promises, those agreements are delivered. It's not up to the media to insert themselves into the debate. It's up to the media to hold all political parties and politicians to account for the things they said. You know, another example of that is Chris Hipkins telling us that they got it wrong on ram raids and violent crime in the streets, and they should have acted further. But no media sits there and says to Christopher Hipkins, well, hang on a second, both you and the police minister, Ginny Anderson, at the time, gas lit the entire population and told us that there actually wasn't an increase in crime. It's just that they had better reporting of it now. Oh, well, you know, does anyone believe that? Certainly I don't. But the trouble is the mainstream people, they sit there and watch the six o'clock news and so call us up, don't they? It's absolutely disgraceful. But they're not going to change, Cam. The media are not going to change. They're on an agenda and they're not going to get off it. The only way they'll change is if they get smothered. Oh, I think they'll be down the street, won't they? Well, I hope so. Will they be doing media? Yeah? Yeah, well, one can only hope. I must say before I, yeah, I must say before we go, there's one thing that does make me very, very sad and all this, and that is that John Clark eventually died. That's our Fred Dagg, remember Fred? Yeah, very famous, very famous observer of politics and what was going on. And, you know, even when he moved to Australia and he started doing his own comedy things over there, just very perceptive about the goings on in politics. And I had a lot of respect for John Clark. You're dead right. Can you imagine an item by him today here? I know. Just, you know, he would just, he would just destroy them. You know, he was a pleasure to watch what he was doing. Good old John Clark. Yeah. All right, Leslie, Linley, sorry. Thanks for your call and we'll talk again next week. All right, Cabe, see you later. Thank you. Bye, Linley. Bye-bye. Good afternoon, Paul. Welcome to Camm's Buddies. Good afternoon, Ken. And happy Easter to you. Yes, happy Easter to you too. And I hope you're going to do a bit of flying and get some rest and relaxation over the Easter break. I may fly down to the beach and we'll have a lovely time with the family, I think. That sounds delightful. Now, I've got a bit of a tricky one for you today. You might have heard the news on Tuesday that the Serious Fraud Office failed in their appeal against the two men from New Zealand first over the donations, obviously having lost in the high court. They've now gone to the court of appeal and they've lost that. And on top of that, they also lost the case against Jamie Lee Ross and the National Party donors and the Labour Party donors. You have to start wondering whether or not the Serious Fraud Office were inserting themselves into the political debate and trying to affect the outcome of not one, but a couple of elections. Well, when they did it the first time, I think they actually were probably quite successful because right at the beginning, I think in the 2020 election, the information of taking Winston Peters and the party having a Serious Fraud Office investigation against them may have affected the way people voted. And I'm thinking that was it some politics that they learned from the US or was it just bad timing, bad luck? I mean, I see Winston Peters said to himself that he thought it was similar to the FBI leader who was throwing up investigations at different times right at the key moments of an election. And I wonder the fact that they've lost the case, that's pretty bad in a waste of our money, but also New Zealand first lost as well because they would have had to pay a fortune in legal fees to make the win or the lack of loss come to a point. But also they didn't make it into Parliament in 2020. And I think there might have been a bit to do with that. I think that they were either egged on or there was a whole lot of media involvement in that and they were only too, the media seemed only too happy for that to occur. And then when you lose a case, and not enough, how many of your listeners have had a case brought to them by the SFO, but I imagine those that have, it's no fun to even be charged, but when and they lose, then you wonder at their thought processes, but then if they go and appeal their loss, so you get another round of it. So it's like you've been punished by the SFO because of the amount of money that you have to spend to get a second situation found not guilty. And then a third and then multiple of them and then they change to the foundation of India first and then to specific people. And all this seems to me just vindictive behavior because when you lose, if you made a mistake, that's one thing. But if you were directed to this by someone and mostly the Serious Fraud Office, they don't normally attack because they don't have the thought processes, I think. And I think if you're an SFO person, you don't strike me as particularly bright. I've got to tell you that because I've had the SFO investigate me in the past and they were just wrong. They were just so wrong, but they were led to it by someone who was very annoyed with me. And so that they pushed them into the direction and showed them some information that wasn't 100% of the information, they had 100% of the information, they wouldn't have bothered in. But there's the pressure that it occurs and the things that happen in the, well, it's not like a court, even though it is a court, it doesn't seem like a court while they're doing the investigation. A lot of it is no fun. And it costs you nothing in a consequential amount of money to be found not guilty. And then they say stupid things like, oh, we just didn't have the evidence to convict you. Oh, good, oh. It's hardly the spirit in which these things are intended. And then with that happening to Winston and then some of the folk in the trust of the foundation, I just thought that was an absolutely vindictive effort. And now that they've been proved not guilty and no one in the party is guilty and no one in the foundation is guilty, I'm thinking how ridiculous is that? Well, it needs to be some punting stuff, isn't it? Well, there does need to be. My understanding is they went with the wrong charges. If they would have charged them with something different, they might have had more success, but there was no victim of the crime. And for the things that were charged, you need a victim. Well, when there's no victim, it's hard to say, oh, well, these guys have misrepresented or misappropriated money, but there's no victim. Well, something's wrong there. And when it happened to the national party. That's exactly what they're doing to Trump, isn't it? So that's what they're doing to Trump. They've convicted him of fraud when there's no victim and there was no fraud. You know, how does that work? They stated beforehand that they'll go out of their way to get him at different times. Well, hopefully our political system isn't that bad where the SFO can be aimed by a political group at somebody and they do this, but they do need to pay somehow for the damage that they've done in the one tour party and two to the country, really. Like had New Zealand first been in government for the four years from 2020 to 2023, the whole lot of things might have been different. And I mean, like that handbrake they would have applied. And the reason that often Winston Peters sees, even though he might be, he seems to have no problem in my view when he's on the wrong track and someone points it out to him and he thinks about it and he's convinced that what they're saying is correct, he will change. And it was exactly what he did because he was quite pro the vaccine and pro the mandate and probably got more information and then he changed his stance on that. And then next thing you know, we see him down at the protest in Wellington. And I'm thinking, well, that's a person that when they get the information that's available, they change to the direction that is correct and accurate. Yeah, I mean, that's the thing but they've made a strategic error that these sorts of noddies that are in these government departments like the serious fraud office, they don't seem to have any sort of understanding of consequences but the people that they attacked are now in power and the ones that can decide whether the serious fraud office continues to exist in its current format or perhaps maybe they should be merged with the police and have their powers reduced or even apply something like other countries have where there's a director of public prosecutions where instead of just willy nilly going to court and prosecuting people, they have to actually present their case with all the evidence to a director of public prosecutions who then sits there and says, look, yeah, I see what you're trying to do here but yeah, I think that's forlorn and best you just drop that. And maybe we need to have some sort of mechanism in place that stops the police or the serious fraud office from pursuing actions like this which had honestly a forlorn hope of ever succeeding. Yes, well also, whoever made the decision to have a go, did they lose their job? They just have business again on Monday and they've cost a group of people millions of dollars. I mean, it cost me a fortune when they had to go at me and I imagine as far as what Winston Peters has, I've heard him saying in the media, it cost them $4 million to defend all this litigation that has been directed in their way. And they've also attacked some fine people whose name I suppressed. And I look at them thinking, well, these people are very reasonable people in life and yet they've been attacked by this and they seem to me to be great citizens and people that we're proud to have in our community, never mind having them being attacked by the likes of someone from a serious fraud office who's perhaps a bureaucrat at best. Well, a bureaucrat who doesn't understand the law but what's worse though is that the barristers that the serious fraud office used, they've got KC after their name, they're supposed to know the law as well and yet here they were prosecuting a case where they're trying to shoehorn Crimes Act offenses into a forlorn case where there was no victim and no crime. And we know there's no crime because it's been overturned in the court of appeal. It was, they lost in the high court and this isn't just one case, remember, this is three cases. This is three cases where the serious fraud office heroically tried to charge people with Crimes Act offenses, essentially a fraud when they're only electoral act offenses which give you a censure or a ticking off with some strong words. But they were trying to put people in jail, you know? Well, what I think is interesting there is a KC in my mind is 500 to 1,000 bucks an hour and you give them work to do and if their meter's running, they're happy to receive the work regardless of how inept the charge or how likely to succeed or fail it is. They don't lose any money, their meter runs per try, not per success. Now, if they were paid by successes only, it would be a completely different idea. But I don't blame the KCs because that's just a business decision. Here comes government with hugely fat pockets giving out money like an octopus and they're saying, oh, y'all have some of that. It's a forlorn hope, but what does it matter to me? If I get 1,000 hours of work at $1,000 an hour, give us a million, we'll call it quits. What about the media involvement in this? I remember the media back then were pronouncing New Zealand first as guilty as charged and smearing them with all sorts of ludicrous claims, particularly Radio New Zealand and stuff. They were the main instigators of all of this and they were trying to out donors to shame them into not giving money and smearing the New Zealand First Party and Winston Peters along the way. They involved themselves in this process as well. The news media and those that you've mentioned in my view seem very much like they want to be the news rather than report the news. And as such, they would like to say they made this happen and they made that happen. I said even getting political scouts would be something that they would feel that they've actually achieved quite a lot in their business today. But what they've actually achieved is 5% of the public that care politically once the election has occurred and 95 could care less. And so they're trying to preach to a very small audience who actually knows quite a lot about politics to be that interested and the rest could care less and they're not interested in hearing almost any of the woke drill that the mainstream media seems to want to put upon us and attacking Winston Peters was definitely the flavor of the day from what I was watching. In fact, detecting anyone on the right was the flavor of the day and I didn't even view Winston as being on the right but he was being attacked because he was speaking against the government in the number of different forums. Yeah, I tend to agree with you on that and the media should hang their heads in shame too. There's not a shred of humility on their part for saying they got it wrong. They should have reported the facts of the case. I think they'll be hanging their heads in no income before they get you much older. Yeah, well, that's... And I don't say that like I'm happy. I say that like that's a terrible thing that they've actually inflicted upon themselves. It's like own goal after own goal and now that the government of the day is in power and the people have spoken, there's no trust for them to drink at quite the same level which is why I'm sure that they were very keen to maintain that so they could have the... What was it? The some media fund... Public interest journalists. Public interest journalists, absolutely. I mean, hello, let's pay you to say what we want you to say. Well, we all know that. It's safe and effective to start with. Yeah, they don't know that what they did is aim the shotgun at both of their feet and blow them off. Yes. Well, it does seem obvious to... I mean, I'm not a political tragic. I just keep abreast of things. But it does seem to me like that will... Many of the things they were saying at different times I was thinking, well, that'll have a sequel before we get too long. There's never a government that makes four terms. So that will all change soon enough. Exactly. All right, Paul, thanks for calling in to the crunch and we'll talk again next week. Very good. Take care and have a good Easter. Bye for now. OK, bye. Welcome to Cam's Buddies, Jack. Good to have you on. You know, how are you? Oh, fantastic as usual. Missed you at lunch on Monday, mate. Good. Yeah, I know. A legit reason. I'm sure there was. Everybody commented, you know, where's Jack? So you were missed. But anyway, I've got a bit of a conundrum for you this week. You might have seen the news that the Serious Fraud Office lost the third case that they had against various political parties, this one being the New Zealand First one. Now, they originally started this case or announced it in the middle of the election campaign in 2020, which could have possibly affected the election result in 2020, which saw New Zealand First bundled out of Parliament. And then in 2023, they announced the appeal that they were going to have in the election campaign period as well, which they've now lost. And I'm starting to wonder, are these people politically motivated? Of course they are. They're also very stupid. I can't argue with you on that one. Do you remember that bloke that was head of the FBI? I think his name was James Comey or something like that. Yeah. And he came out and announced that he was going to investigate Hillary Clinton just before the election. How do you think that that sort of favourite had chances? This to me is just exactly the same. Exactly. What we're seeing here is that this is what's particularly galling about this case, all these cases in New Zealand, is that the Serious Court Office didn't charge these fellows, all these people or political parties with offences under the Electoral Act. What they did is they turned the law, criminal law inside out and upside down and tried to charge these parties and people with essentially fraud that they were deceptive and defrauding somebody, but they couldn't say who they defrauded because the donors weren't defrauded. They willingly gave money. None of them said they wanted the money back. The political parties got the money, so they weren't defrauded. The Electoral Act says that they weren't, there was no fraud here, but the police went ahead and charged them under the Crimes Act with these charges of fraud. And it echoes what's happening to Trump in the United States, where in New York they charged him with fraud, but there's no victim, no complainant. And the loans that they say he defrauded the banks with were all repaid with interest. So we got this Americanisation of officials inserting themselves into the political debate. Then I don't think we should tolerate it. Well, those that think that this is a squeaky clean country where everyone's very nice and honest are fooling themselves. Corruption exists at a higher level. Yeah. Witness it for yourself. I know for a fact that what do you do? Well, you've got to speak up and say things. That's why we have radio stations like Reality Cheat Radio so that we can actually say these things out loud that nobody else is saying, but they're all thinking. Yeah, well, I've just said it. Yeah, but you and I and Paul and the others on the buddies, we're all people who are fearless, where we're all prepared to say what we think and we do. And if people are upset about that, well, it's too bad. We've got some more opinions that they might not like too. What people would get upset about what we say? Who are these people? I think mainly politicians, because we speak the truth. Don't get me going. It's depressing thinking about it. That's better than watching the news, isn't it? It is, I guess. What news? Yeah, well, that's all going to disappear from TV so soon. I haven't been reincarnated. I keep hearing the news and I think, I heard that several days ago. Well, maybe I died and I'm reincarnated and I'm hearing it again. But no, I mean, even stupid news is perpetuated. I can't believe it. I know. It's just making up stuff to full spaces. Yeah, exactly. 100% agree with you, Jack. All right, well, we'll talk again next week, I think. And thank you for coming on The Crunch. Okay, see you, Cam. Take care. Bye. See you, Jack. Bye. Have a great Easter. Thank you. You too. Good afternoon, Jimmy. Welcome to Cam's Buddies. Hello, Cameron. What have you got for me this week, man? Well, you might have seen the news on Tuesday where the Serious Fraud Office lost their third case, the case against New Zealand First Foundation in the Court of Appeal. And Winston's obviously cackling and laughing as hard as he can because he's defeated the Serious Fraud Office yet again. But it rather begs the question. Well, let's be motivated. Yeah, exactly. Are these politically motivated attacks? And should we tolerate having an activist organization like the Serious Fraud Office that announces prosecutions and appeals in the middle of election campaigns? Well, they were trying to bring Winston down. That was obvious at the time. And now it's been chucked out. It's good to know the judicial system works fairly. Yeah, I mean, it worked in 2020, though, didn't it? It worked in 2020 because Winston was bundled out of Parliament. Well, to be fair, 2020 was a pretty crazy election where the Labour Party getting over 50% just sucking all the oxygen out of there. But it would be hard for a minor party to do a repeat, I guess, in that situation. Yeah, I think so. It's clearly Wellington is so politically biased and sane. It's nuts. All the people that staff these departments are at rabid lefties. And they do anything to... And I mean, look at Trump and Washington. It's exactly the same. All these cases, they... And they're just slowly chucking them out. It's just the government against these candidates. And they're using whatever powers they can try and use to either slow these people down or bring them down. It's not fair, is it? Like, how do you... Yes. But fortunately, Winston's got a lot of cunning and experience and the Don's got lots of money. But anyone else would be just... It'd be much harder for them to fight back. Yeah, I wouldn't want to be the director of the Serious Fraud Office at the moment because, of course, Winston Peters is in cabinet. He's the deputy prime minister. And a cabinet meeting is going to be very interesting if they talk about the future of the Serious Fraud Office from now on, isn't it? So now that it's finished and over and he's won, can they bring it up and he can talk about it feeling now? They're correct. No, there's still suppression orders in place. But my understanding of the case is that at least one of the people who was charged is likely to seek to have the suppression orders overturned so he can tell the story of it from his own perspective. So that'd be interesting to see what happens. But I know that I've seen Winston's press release he put out on Tuesday. It was very liverish and very hostile towards the Serious Fraud Office. And I can imagine him, he's a person who holds grudges for years. I can see him... But no one's beyond redemption. You know, I used to go to war with Winston Peters all the time. I called him all sorts of terrible things. But you know... Oh, I remember I used to read the blog. Yeah, and him and I get on really, really well. So it'll be interesting to see what happens. But I'm picking that the Serious Fraud Office might actually get disbanded and merged into the police or something like that, or maybe the Ministry of Justice where they certainly don't deserve to be standing on their own two feet. Well, you just have to sort of metaphorically chop the head off it and regrow it with a different culture, right? So it is quite good that it stands alone from the police, you know, because there might be a situation where they have to investigate the police. So it is quite good to have an independent fraud, you know. But are they independent? But you know, because like you think about it, right? The Serious Fraud Office reports to the Attorney General or to the Minister responsible for the Serious Fraud Office. In 2020, that was a Labour minister that they reported to. Who benefited the most from Winston Peters not making it back into Parliament? Will the Labour Party benefited the most? Well, as the politics becomes more partisan, you know, we've seen such a decline of that where people in Parliament used to act correctly no matter what was going on in terms of partisanship and stuff like that. But now you've seen this slow decline of that, hey. Yeah, I think it's an unwelcome development to see this. But part of that, of course, is the involvement of the media because they just ran the Serious Fraud Office's lines. They proclaimed Winston Peters and the New Zealand First Party to be corrupt. People said we're never voting for Winston Peters again. They said they were never going to donate to New Zealand First again. This was a political hip job from where I'm looking at it from. And if it if it smells, if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck and it walks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Well, yeah, look, I've got nothing good to say about the media. I'm glad to see them go broke. There's a lot happened on Tuesday. Did you see the University of Auckland had a apartheid sign, Ken? Yeah, they had a sign. Segregation sign. A segregation sign wasn't there to describe. They said this is a quiet space for Maori and Pacifica students. If if you had put a sign up and said coloured folks here, there'd be an outcry. Absolutely. I just can't believe it. That's my old university. They email me asking for money all the time. They're going to get a big response next time. I just can't believe that actually that signs real. I thought it must be a prank. But it's it's it's real. It's real. My my understanding is there's 20 of such things at the University of Auckland. There's 20 of these safe spaces for Maori and Pacifica. Well, our government need to look to make them financially responsible for their crappy decision choices. They can act like that if they like, but they can't have public money if you're going to act like that. Well, I want to know why why it's only Maori and Pacifica. Where's the safe space for Asian students or where's the safe space for, you know, South Americans or Panamanians or whatever? Well, that's because this stuff never works, right? It's only it's only the biggest victim group. But I actually can't believe I've seen that fine in these ones. I actually cannot get over it. Yeah, well, believe it. It's a horror show. So that's where the government needs to say, well, hang on a second. Auckland University, you get a large amount of funding from the government for for education, for funding and for all sorts of things. You need to get rid of this segregation, this whatever you want to call it, diversity stuff. There needs to go. And it's all it's all comers. We want universities to be a place of learning and free speech and all of those sorts of things. And this sort of nonsense needs to disappear. I mean, next thing they'll say, there's going to be safe spaces for blokes who think they're women. Well, they're trying to force men into women's toilets and force white sort of some spaces. It seems batty to me, maybe on old fashioned. It's completely batty when you've got, you know, blokes who are average athletes at the best, right? Get beaten by absolutely everybody in the men's thing. And then they go all of a sudden they grow their hair long, change their name to Martha and and start, you know, entering swimming competitions and and running races and start slaying all the women that can't compete with them because they haven't got the levels of testosterone or muscle building that's gone on for these clowns who seem to be mentally ill. Well, that's true. So what I would say is that I'm disappointed. I thought the voting in this government last year was like just such a relief, but we're still seeing loads of what craziness. Well, I don't think I don't think these organizations, particularly these government or quasi government organizations like universities have got the memo. And maybe we need to have, you know, instead of a memo, a stout stick or maybe a brick in the forehead or something like that. So they actually get the message, which is this nonsense needs to stop because it was resummonly voted out like New Zealanders didn't want Arden or Hipkins prescribed politics and type of politics. They got chucked out and yet it continues on at Auckland University and other institutions that how do we get the message across to them again? Again, I think a stout stick or some severe penalties where the vice chancellor get loses his job. The only way to. It's actually some people, you know, gas a few of them, you know, smother this sort of nonsense and call it out. I'm pretty sure Winston Peters is going to put something out on on X shortly about that. So I can absolutely guarantee you'll say something about that. I know he's been tagged to death on it. So he will be he'll come out with a devastating thing. I see X been pretty good on it. And yeah. Yeah. So anyway, there's a lot going on that far out. There is a lot going on. And that's why why we're here at reality check radio so we can give some of these clowns a reality check. Well, you're doing a great job, mate. That's awesome. Well, thank you for calling in. You have a good Easter and a nice break with with the kids. And we'll talk again next week. OK. Thanks for calling. Thanks, Gam. To me. See you. Now, you see, my buddies can see through the media spin. They know the truth. And that's why I have them on the show so that you can hear the truth as well. These are ordinary New Zealanders and they never hold back. Tell us your thoughts on Cam's buddies by emailing inbox at realitycheck.radio or text to 2057. Thanks for tuning in to RCR, Reality Check Radio. Do you like what you're listening to or dislike what you're listening to? Either way, we want to hear from you. Get in touch with us now. You can text us with your message to 2057. That's 2057 or email us at inbox at realitycheck.radio. We'd love to hear from you, so connect with us today.