From Newsgroup: nz.general

Quite a few MPs seem to think that BrownleerCOs ejection of Swarbrick from
the House over her rCLgrow a spinerCY comment was excessive. The Speaker is also refusing to let her back in until she apologizes, which she refuses
to do. Willie Jackson points out that he was not required to retract a
prior rCLliarrCY statement before being allowed back in, and that is just about the worst word you are not allowed to use in the House.

Even Winston Peters thinks SwarbrickrCOs comments did not overstep any
bounds.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: nz.general

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

Quite a few MPs seem to think that BrownleerCOs ejection of Swarbrick from >the House over her rCLgrow a spinerCY comment was excessive. The Speaker is >also refusing to let her back in until she apologizes, which she refuses
to do. Willie Jackson points out that he was not required to retract a
prior rCLliarrCY statement before being allowed back in, and that is just >about the worst word you are not allowed to use in the House.

Even Winston Peters thinks SwarbrickrCOs comments did not overstep any >bounds.

Cite? I doubt you will produce one.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: nz.general

On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 04:06:51 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

Quite a few MPs seem to think that BrownleeAs ejection of Swarbrick from
the House over her ogrow a spineo comment was excessive. The Speaker is
also refusing to let her back in until she apologizes, which she refuses
to do. Willie Jackson points out that he was not required to retract a
prior oliaro statement before being allowed back in, and that is just
about the worst word you are not allowed to use in the House.

Even Winston Peters thinks SwarbrickAs comments did not overstep any
bounds.

If I recall correctly Jackson did eventually 'withdraw and apologise'.
Peters is simply getting a jab in at Brownlie.
--
Crash McBash
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2