Councillor Aaron Keown will be appearing in the Christchurch High Court later this month. His opponents decided to ignore his advice to 'f**k off'...

I suspect that Aaron Keown thought his opponents were just bluffing when they threatened to take legal action against him to have him removed from the appointment process to choose a new CEO for the Christchurch City Council.

But little Aaron's bluff has been called and he'll be in the High Court on August 30 where he will be arguing that he should still be able to take part in the appointment process. It won't exactly be Rumpole of the Bailey or even Boston Legal, but it might be fun. I might even pop along myself to watch Aaron's antics.

The bad and unacceptable thing about all this though is that the good people of Christchurch are having to pay various legal bills just because Keown refuses to face up to political reality.

Christchurch investment adviser and businessman Tim Howe has brought the action against Keown because little Aaron, following Sideshow Bob's shining example, stupidly came out in support of the present CEO Tony Marryatt. He is quoted as saying, among other things, that Christchurch should feel 'privileged' that 'Tony' wants to keep his job for the next five years.

The reason that 'Tony' wants to keep his job is, thanks to the generosity of his good mate Sideshow Bob, he is being paid in the region of $480,000 a year plus expenses.

Keown is still protesting that he hasn't done anything wrong and he is now claiming that 'someone' on the council is waging a campaign against him and is leaking information to the local media.

'There's a councillor that is trying to undermine the process,' said Keown this week. Golly. Who could it be? I want to thank them..


  1. If he's found guilty, now many years can they put him away for?

  2. take the councillors that are open minded to the appointment and without Keown on the other side it's game over for Maryatt. The 2013 elections can't come soon enough!!!!!!!

  3. And then Button blows her chops and says we might have to fund his legal fees though indemnity? on what basis? i would have thought Chen's advice should have been sufficient and anything further is paid for by those seeking it, and I mean Button wasting more money too. Her Opinion in the Press perspective the other day, while correct based on what she said, was woefully short on providing open and transparent detail. She may be able to con a certain amount of the public but not all, any more spin in that article and you would have needed a brick to keep the paper on the table.


Comments are moderated.