Blame Goff?

61 comments on “Blame Goff? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Richard 1

   10 June 2011 at 4:22 pm

   I’m not sure what you are trying to say here.

   Yes, both Key and Goff seemingly fumbled their response to Worth and Hughes respectively.

   While Goff is not directly responsible for what Hughes did (if anything), and Key is not directly responsible for what Worth did (whatever that was), both leaders are responsible for their own responses.

   The fact that Key is useless doesn’t excuse Goff for displaying similar uselessness.
   • lprent 1.1

     10 June 2011 at 4:25 pm

     The significant difference is that Worth was on about his 5th public strike when Key finally got around to doing something about it.

     This was the first time that Hughes has besmirched his party with poor judgement.

     You don’t dump people because of a mistake. You dump them because they fail to learn from their mistakes.
     • Richard 1.1.1

       10 June 2011 at 4:52 pm

       You don’t dump people because of a mistake.

       Depends on what the mistake is.

       And if you are a political leader, you don’t arrange matters so that it appears that you have been caught trying to clumsily cover something up.
       • Tigger 1.1.1.1

         10 June 2011 at 5:03 pm

         DPF is spinning like a top to make Goff seem weak and Key decisive. That’s the real point here. None of us should argue he said/he did, look at how DPF is trying to paint Key as being a great man while Goff is a snivelling cretin.
       • lprent 1.1.1.2

         10 June 2011 at 6:01 pm

         Cover it up? WTF.. From whom?

         The police had it, and there has been absolutely no suggestion that Goff or Hughes or anyone was attempting to subvert the course of justice.

         So all Goff is ‘guilty’ of is not confirming to those lard arse lazy journos that there had been a single complaint against Hughes.

         Fuck off. In my time as a volunteer in politics, I have had four complaints against me to the police by various people for everything from assault to trespass. All of which were never carried through to charges. Just being involved in politics means that complaints are made against you.

         Basically you sound like a political innocent who hasn’t had a lot to do with actual politics.
         • Richard 1.1.1.2.1

           10 June 2011 at 10:27 pm

           I’m not saying that Goff was actually trying to cover anything up — if he was he certainly did a terrible job of it.

           However, he allowed the initial events to play out in a way that made it very easy for his political opponents to portray it as a failed cover-up.

           Things like:
           – keeping quiet about the investigation and waiting for the media to find out.
           – saying that Hughes didn’t need to resign or anything, and then a few days later reversing that position.
           – seemingly not informing people like Andrew Little, so that confusing and contradictory statements came out of Labour

           Of course, it is difficult to see a good way forward in such difficult events. But that’s what we want leaders to do.

           Any clown can muddle through when things are going well — look at Key — it’s making good decisions in difficult circumstances that make a good leader. The Hughes saga has not been a stellar example of good leadership from Goff.

           lprent: Just being involved in politics means that complaints are made against you.

           Of course, but the leadership issue is in managing those complaints in such a way that they don’t blow-up. And that’s the leadership failure here.
     • Lanthanide 1.1.2

       10 June 2011 at 5:44 pm

       “This was the first time that Hughes has besmirched his party with poor judgement.
       You don’t dump people because of a mistake. You dump them because they fail to learn from their mistakes.”
        
       Actually it was said at the time that this first came up, that Darren had made other questionable decisions in the past relating to bringing men home with him. Whether or not there’s any truth to that I’ve no idea.
   • PeteG 1.2

     10 June 2011 at 4:32 pm

     Yes, both Key and Goff seemingly fumbled their response to Worth and Hughes respectively.

     One difference is that Key had a lot more margin for error then, no challenge to his leadersip, Goff was on shaky ground as it was, even amongst his own party supporters.

     If a Worth event happened now it would probably be quite different for Key – a) it should handle it better now and b) if he didn’t he’d deserve a bit of flak, which I guess is why Labourites are trying for all they’re worth to find an Akeylees heel.
     • mickysavage 1.2.1

       10 June 2011 at 4:34 pm

       PeteG so being popular justifies a PM making a wrong decision?  Surely if the decision is wrong then it does not matter how popular the person who made it was.
       • PeteG 1.2.1.1

         10 June 2011 at 4:53 pm

         I didn’t say it justifies it. Just easier to be relatively unscathed.

         I’ll put it another way – someone who’s 70% in the polls will probably not be as critically wounded as someone who’s at 6% in the polls. A drop of 6% to to 64% isn’t too drastic.
         • Colonial Viper 1.2.1.1.1

           10 June 2011 at 5:07 pm

           However a drop from 6% to 0% doesn’t mean anything in real terms either 🙂
         • mickysavage 1.2.1.1.2

           10 June 2011 at 6:08 pm

           So morality does not matter?  Only success?
   • Tangled up in blue 1.3

     10 June 2011 at 8:44 pm

     The fact that Key is useless doesn’t excuse Goff for displaying similar uselessness.

     I agree.

     Also Goff strongly criticized Key for not going public regarding Worth, then turned around and did the same thing himself.
2. lprent 2

   10 June 2011 at 4:23 pm

   I have been noting that Farrar blustering his way with this spin. It is complete bullshit and always was. 

   Many of the political main stream media were also trying to spin it like this. I wonder if they’re feeling a bit guilty and would prefer to blame someone else for their lynch mob mentality. You’d have thought by now they’d have had a good look at their bad habit of repeating the spinners like Farrar.
3. Bunji 3

   10 June 2011 at 4:29 pm

   The media are keen to blame Goff so nobody looks at them and says: Why did you hound this guy out of office, who now appears to be in the clear?

   The reason Goff didn’t go earlier was because he knew exactly what would (and did) happen. And if he’d gone earlier the police investigation would have been much further compromised, as at least the police had a while to gather evidence before the media were treading on everything.

   Goff of course hoped the police would be able to reach a decision before the media found out but somebody in the Beehive leaked, knowing they’d get away with causing a media shitstorm, even if they ruined police procedure.

   So the real questions should be about the leaker and about how the media handles such things. But it’s much easier to just blame Goff, like he had any other choice.

   Sometimes you have to do what’s right, for justice and for people (real human beings – both Hughes and the student involved), rather than just what’s best politically.
   • Lanthanide 3.1

     10 June 2011 at 5:47 pm

     “So the real questions should be about the leaker and about how the media handles such things. But it’s much easier to just blame Goff, like he had any other choice.”
      
     Didn’t it go like this:
     Wednesday: Darren has offered to stand down and I have declined.
     Thursday: Darren is standing down.
     Friday: Darren has resigned and I accept his resignation.
     So yes, we can blame Goff for that bad display and dragging it out.
4. mickysavage 4

   10 June 2011 at 4:33 pm

   Richard
    
   R0b is actually being charitable to Key.  Perhaps his decision to not give details about Worth was correct.  Certainly Goff has acknowledged that the situation is far more complex once he found himself dealing with Hughes.
    
   But there is one significant difference that Farrar and others have always tried to gloss over by saying that the situation is the same.  We do not know what Worth did or why he was fired.  We do know generally about the allegations surrounding Hughes.
    
   Key should release the allegations surrounding Worth and the reasons for his being fired.
    
   • Richard 4.1

     10 June 2011 at 4:50 pm

     Sure, you can argue that Goff may have handled Hughes a bit better than Key handled Worth. I would agree with you.

     However, Goff still did a bad job with managing the crisis around Hughes.

     Key is a terrible leader…being slightly more competent than Key is a pretty damming assessment.
   • PeteG 4.2

     10 June 2011 at 4:57 pm

     Key should release the allegations surrounding Worth and the reasons for his being fired.

     Do you really think that?

     Should Goff release the allegations surrounding Hughes? He must know more than what is publicly known.

     I don’t think either should be expected to release any details. Both incidents are history, we should move on. People are fallible, it’s an issue when they’re refallible.
     • Lanthanide 4.2.1

       10 June 2011 at 5:49 pm

       “I don’t think either should be expected to release any details. Both incidents are history, we should move on. People are fallible, it’s an issue when they’re refallible.”
        
       We deserve to know more about what happened to Worth, though, because he was a paid minister of the crown.
        
       What we know about Darren is that it was an allegation by a young man of a sexual nature after Darren took him back to his flat. We don’t know anything at all about what Worth did except for all of his other salacious and incompetent failings around the same time, but we have no idea if the straw that broke the camels back was the confluence of those events, or something else.
     • Colonial Viper 4.2.2

       10 June 2011 at 6:04 pm

       Both incidents are history, we should move on. People are fallible, it’s an issue when they’re refallible.

       Perfect excuse to let war criminals and Enron style fraudsters go scot free huh? I mean, after the war has ended or after the company has collapsed it’s all just “history” and we should then “move on” and not pursue the truth, right?
       • PeteG 4.2.2.1

         10 June 2011 at 6:58 pm

         Just a slight difference – the police didn’t see fit to proceed with charges for both Worth and Hughes, war criminals must have been convicted and there were convictions with Enron too. There’s another slight difference, of scale.

         My guess is that most people beyond a few frantics will have virtually forgotten Worth and unless Hughes makes a quick comeback his event will fade quickly too.

         There reaches a point where you just have to move on or you’ll end up bitter and twisted.

         I doubt Goff’s handling of Hughes will figure much if at all in the election.
         • mickysavage 4.2.2.1.1

           10 June 2011 at 8:13 pm

           PeteG

           You are such a windup.

           Worth got sacked for doing something really bad while he was a Minister.  As a taxpayer (I presume you pay tax) and essentially an employer of him don’t you want to know what he did?

           Besides the lack of an explanation lets many speculate about what he actually did.  I have heard speculation that his sacking involves his requesting the Malaysian Government to reimburse him for expenses that were, well, not  usual.

           But as a taxpayer I have not has this confirmed.  Why not?  Did not I help pay his wages?
           • Sam 4.2.2.1.1.1

             12 June 2011 at 8:07 am

             Did your taxes not pay Darren Hughes’ wages too?
     • mickysavage 4.2.3

       10 June 2011 at 6:10 pm

       Should Goff release the allegations surrounding Hughes? He must know more than what is publicly known.

       But he has.  He said that Hughes was stood down because of the investigation and Hughes then resigned as his position was untenable.

       Why was Worth stood down and why was he fired?
5. Peter 5

   10 June 2011 at 5:53 pm

   Who in the eyes of the public is the most trustworthy leader?
6. Rodel 6

   10 June 2011 at 5:53 pm

   Actually it was all the fault of Prince Phillip.
7. ianmac 7

   10 June 2011 at 6:11 pm

   Farrar’s column in the Herald declares that there is no big news this week apart from Darren’s story and that a Rugby jersey was not allowed in the House. However the comments section did have the large majority contesting that choice, including such things as the false 170,000 jobs prediction, asset sales, exchange rates and so on. David must find it refreshing to not be surrounded by the spiteful comments that are his usual fodder.
   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10731376
   • Colonial Viper 7.1

     10 June 2011 at 6:22 pm

     Farrar reckoned the biggest political news this week for relative trivia? (Not that Hughes’ predicament was trivial in of itself).

     I personally thought the massive setback to National’s polling lead in the Roy Morgan would have been up there, as well as the loss of so many NZ jobs from Dunedin and Taranaki.

     But maybe he meant the big news that National wanted people to focus on.
8. Tom Gould 8

   10 June 2011 at 7:42 pm

   Sadly, the facts do not matter now that the gallery have decided that Goff screwed it up and are saying so out loud. Just another way for them to spin their own story and put the boot in. They turn up on TV and on radio and in print and over drinks and for money briefing the big business boys saying that Goff CANNOT win. So they need to make it so, or give the money back I guess? Besides, that nice Mr. Key wouldn’t tell lies to journalists, would he? But as for that tired old retread Goff …
9. burt 9

   10 June 2011 at 8:17 pm

   rOb

   So if there are far more similarities than differences in the Hughes/Goff and Worth/Key affairs and you also think it’s ‘The Right wing gutter of politics’ to tarnish Goff. Then would you go so far as to say it was ‘The Left wing gutter of politics’ to tarnish Key over Worth?
   • Colonial Viper 9.1

     10 June 2011 at 8:23 pm

     If it’s so similar, lets have the police release an account of the allegations against Richard Worth.

     It’s easy to tarnish Key over Worth because Key hasn’t revealed what Worth did to deserve removal.
   • r0b 9.2

     11 June 2011 at 1:12 am

     The right wing gutter of politics is Farrar, Slater and the like.  Gutter because they photoshop their opponents faces on to porn, run national billboard campaigns comparing their opponents to dictators, and the like.  They run blogs that are breeding grounds for racism, sexism, homophobia, and a sad little spectrum of disturbed and dysfunctional behaviour.

     As far as I’m aware there is no equivalent left wing gutter.  If there is, I’d condemn them too.
10. burt 10

    10 June 2011 at 8:39 pm

    CV

    I think a naked 18 year old running around the streets calling the police put the details in the media.
    • Colonial Viper 10.1

      10 June 2011 at 8:40 pm

      And the parallel event with the Worth case is?
    • Lanthanide 10.2

      10 June 2011 at 9:02 pm

      There’s been no confirmation by anyone that:
      1. The naked 18 year old even existed, or
      2. The naked 18 year old was some-how linked to Darren Hughes (we don’t even know if the alleged naked person was 18 or not)

      Sure, they are likely to be related. But there’s no confirmation of that.
11. Blue 11

    10 June 2011 at 8:41 pm

    The Right desperately need to spin this against Goff. That’s their whole election strategy – plant the ‘Goff can’t win’ meme and sow it as widely and deeply as possible.

    Plant the idea that Goff and Labour can’t possibly win, so you may as well vote for Key and National and not bother with all that talk about asset sales, KiwiSaver cuts and increasing the ‘flexibility’ of the labour market.

    I don’t think the Hughes saga really damaged Goff in the eyes of anyone other than political journalists, however. I think a lot of people felt sympathy for Darren and identified with Goff over the struggle he faced between standing by a friend and colleague and doing what was best for his political career. I think people liked the fact that Phil didn’t behave in a cold, ruthless manner for political expediency.

    The Key/Worth affair was the really shameful affair. Key and Worth weren’t friends, and Key’s behaviour in that was solely motivated by political expediency. So much so that he didn’t even want to tell the public what Worth did, obviously for fear of what scandal would result. And of course our lazy fourth estate gave up asking questions about it and let Key get away with not fronting up.
    • Lanthanide 11.1

      10 June 2011 at 9:05 pm

      “I don’t think the Hughes saga really damaged Goff in the eyes of anyone other than political journalists, however. I think a lot of people felt sympathy for Darren”

      I agree.

      I do find the apparent big lack of homophobia somewhat unexpected, though. Sure, there is some, but not nearly as much as I would’ve thought.
12. Anne 12

    10 June 2011 at 8:54 pm

    I read somewhere recently three anonymous letters were sent to media outlets (the item didn’t specify which ones) immediately following the complaint to police by an 18 year old teenager. The police investigated the claim/claims made in the letters and found nothing to substantiate them. I get the feeling a developing situation was used by someone to discredit Darren Hughes and destroy his political career. That would suggest to me the incident has more similarities to the 1976 Colin Moyle affair than it does with Richard Worth.

    If I’m correct, then it is deplorable and I don’t accept the notion that nothing can be done about it. It is incumbent upon someone to ‘out’ the culprit (or culprits) and ensure some form of justice is seen to be done.
    • Chris 12.1

      10 June 2011 at 11:07 pm

      Sorry but do you hve any kind of link to this? You say if I’m correct then it is deplorable and you are right but it is very easy too say that I read this somewhere and spread rumors that way.

      Whereas I didn’t hear about this anywhere and would be very interested in reading about it. Would be very handy in providing a difference between Worth and Hughes…
      • Treetop 12.1.1

        11 June 2011 at 5:58 pm

        Chris I have a condensed version of the December 1976 inquiry (4,500 words) into the breach of the Colin Moyle file. Until it is referenced I cannot have it placed on the internet. I have had some excellent feed back from some academics on it.

        I require help to have it referenced to go onto the internet.
    • Carol 12.2

      11 June 2011 at 6:47 am

      The letter was mentioned in a few news articles in various news outlets:

      http://www.3news.co.nz/Hughes-looks-forward-to-future-with-optimism/tabid/419/articleID/214292/Default.aspx

      Mr Johnson also made reference to further allegations against Hughes contained in an anonymously written letter.

      “Some media outlets received an anonymous letter about Mr Hughes whilst police were investigating this complaint. I can confirm those allegations contained in the letter have been investigated and there were no matters which arose that required police attention.”

      Also mentioned in this press release from the police:
      http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=35437
    • Treetop 12.3

      11 June 2011 at 5:52 pm

      “That would suggest to me the incident has more similarities to the 1976 Colin Moyle affair than it does with Richard Worth.”

      Anne my immediate thought was Colin Moyle revisited. I have to be cautious not to shoot myself in the foot because of future litigation as I have no choice other than to take litigation out against the police for not adequately investigating my police complaints in relation to the Colin Moyle affair.

      I am prepared to disclose that in 1976 for the first six months I dated the cop who was involved with the Moyle incident 17 June 1975, I was age 16 and the incident was disclosed to me by him in March 1976.

      My message to Key is that I still want a barrister assigned to do a comprehensive investigation or Marshall too can have a barrister assigned to do a comprehensive investigation.

      Have I been to Goff and King about the police? Yes I have. They both had my concerns forwarded onto the police in 2005 and 2006 without any delay. Broad is a bozo and I will prove him to be a bozo.
      • Anne 12.3.1

        12 June 2011 at 4:02 pm

        Hi Treetop
        Your comments are very interesting. In the event you succeed in getting an investigation underway, I would love to submit some information that is not only relevant to the Colin Moyle Affair, but could solve a few other historical political ‘mysteries’ that occurred during the 1970s and the 1980s. I have sat on this information for more than ten years waiting for an opportunity to pass it on to an appropriate body.
        • Treetop 12.3.1.1

          13 June 2011 at 1:51 pm

          I hope that you get an oppertunity. Having a barrister assigned to do an inquiry is now my number one focus in life.
13. BR 13

    11 June 2011 at 8:20 am

    Here’s what happened:

    Hughes plied an 18 year old boy with booze at Annette king’s house
    rendering him comatose. He then removed all the boy’s clothing and
    sodomized him.

    The boy woke up, turned around, looked in horror at what was behind
    him, and in a blind panic ran out into the street naked where he was
    picked up by a police patrol.

    It is quite reasonable to assume that this is close to the truth in the absence of an explanation from Hughes.

    Bill.
    • The Voice of Reason 13.1

      11 June 2011 at 8:30 am

      Except the Police could find no evidence of your fantasy despite having the man in their care shortly afterwards. Try doing your thinking with your big head, Bill, you’ll get better results.
      • lprent 13.1.1

        11 June 2011 at 8:50 am

        VoR, I am not sure that I really want him doing that on the site. Remember that the perception of size is in the mind. The smaller the mind, the bigger that they compensate.

        Bad enough when he tried to use his brain to write words as I think that he did. Bills scenario would have had the police charging virtually immediately, so it evidentially (and obviously) that did not happen.

        I suspect that you are assuming that Bill has a even lower level of intelligence than he actually displayed. Within his limitations he did display some imagination in his description, albeit somewhat diminished by his repitition of the middle ages slur against the citizens of Sodom. It was just that he either failed to draw the relevant conclusion, or that he has an very low opinion of the police that I wouldn’t hold.

        So it is reasonable to believe that if he starts to use what he thinks is his bigger head, then the resulting comment could get quite messy.
    • Tangled up in blue 13.2

      11 June 2011 at 8:51 am

      It is quite reasonable to assume that this is close to the truth in the absence of an explanation from Hughes.

      Reasonable? Assuming Hughes raped the guy based on Hughes not making a public statement about what happened – is NOT in accordance with reason. Not to mention it ignores the results of the police investigation. Ridiculous is a more suitable word.
      • marsman 13.2.1

        11 June 2011 at 10:38 am

        Assuming anything is NOT reasonable, you weren’t there, you don’t know!
14. marsman 14

    11 June 2011 at 10:40 am

    The Dom had Darren’s news front page with a smear piece by National’s Tracy Watkins tacked on.
15. BR 15

    11 June 2011 at 11:37 am

    “Except the Police could find no evidence of your fantasy despite having the man in their care shortly afterwards.”

    What other possible scenario is there? I said that it is reasonable to assume that what I said is close to the truth. That doesn’t mean that it is necessarily accurate down to the minutest detail. He might have merely attempted to sodomize the boy and not succeeded.

    The point is that something extremely sordid happened that night at Annette King’s house. It is known that Hughes and the boy were drinking together earlier on, and that the boy accompanied Hughes back to Annette King’s house. It is also known that the boy was subsequently seen naked in the street covering his genitals by a passing motorist and was later picked up by a police patrol in a distressed state. The whole affair was initially covered up by the Labour party, but as soon as it became public, Hughes resigned. A police investigation into the affair was launched in response to the resulting complaint. The police eventually decided not to press charges as the level of proof was deemed insufficient to gain a conviction (not surprising when it is only Hughes’ word against that of the boy). However, the boy was not charged with wasting police time, nor was he charged with making a false complaint.

    So why won’t Hughes fill in the gaps? If there is a perfectly innocent explanation for the whole affair, let’s be having it. There is now talk of Hughes getting back into parliamant now that the charges have been dropped.

    If Hughes does get back into parliament, he owes the NZ taxpayers, i.e. those of us who pay his salary, an explanation. People that are paid high salaries on the NZ taxpayer and who also have the power to make laws which restrict and regulate the behaviour of the citizenry should be held to a higher level of accountability than the minimum level of proof required to convict a common sex offender.

    Bill.
    • Colonial Viper 15.1

      11 June 2011 at 11:49 am

      So why won’t Hughes fill in the gaps?

      You’re a dirty little man, aren’t you. You probably also have a subscription to Womans Day, from how much you love tattletales and gossip. Why not have Darren act in a reality TV show re-enactment of the night in question or provide us with photographs?

      But actually this is all a distraction from the main event: this Government’s appalling conduct. Your pleas aren’t in the interests of helping this country move forwards from NAT destroying industry jobs, sending work overseas, bashing benes, enriching the already wealthy, making money from imprisoning our neighbours, granting dollars to their corporate mates and church mates, buying BMWs in a recession, borrowing more money than they need to from the Chinese, etc. You even have a NACT MP who gets supplemental income from a brothel, and where were the detailed explanations from Wong and Worth after the National coverup?

      If Hughes does get back into parliament, he owes the NZ taxpayers, i.e. those of us who pay his salary, an explanation. People that are paid high salaries on the NZ taxpayer and who also have the power to make laws which restrict and regulate the behaviour of the citizenry should be held to a higher level of accountability than the minimum level of proof required to convict a common sex offender.

      Here’s a startling idea mate: just because you pay someone some money, it doesn’t mean that you own their life .
    • marsman 15.2

      11 June 2011 at 1:36 pm

      ” the point is that something extremely sordid happened”
      The point is BR you were not there, you do Not KNOW what happened! The point is also that your assumptions ARE NOT facts!
    • Lanthanide 15.3

      11 June 2011 at 4:09 pm

      Please stop referring to an 18 year old man as a ‘boy’. Thanks.
      • seeker 15.3.1

        11 June 2011 at 4:19 pm

        Well said Lanthanide.
16. BR 16

    12 June 2011 at 11:56 am

    “The point is BR you were not there, you do Not KNOW what happened! The point is also that your assumptions ARE NOT facts!”

    You people are all in denial. Hughes resigned immediately once the affair became public. What is that if not compelling evidence of a guilty conscience? Hughes is obviously a very grubby pervert. I know it, you all know it, and the entire Labour party knows it too, that’s why they don’t want him back, at least this side of the election.

    “You’re a dirty little man, aren’t you.”

    Hey, I’m not the one who has naked boys running from my place of residence in a blind panic in the middle of the night.

    “Please stop referring to an 18 year old man as a ‘boy’.”

    He is a minor. request denied.

    Bill.
    • seeker 16.1

      12 June 2011 at 4:35 pm

      Bill

      “You’re a dirty little man, aren’t you.”

      Hey, I’m not ………”

      – but you are. You are the one that is trying to smear someone by selecting a few random “facts” and spinning them together to create a ghastly perverted outcome of your own inner making . You do not seem to be a pleasant or clean individual when you can pen such horrible spin.

      P.S. The young man was a man by law . Minors do not vote. Get a grip Bill.
17. BR 17

    12 June 2011 at 7:09 pm

    The boy got drunk, and took of his clothes and went to bed in the spare room. He got up in the night to go to the toilet. He was still very drunk and staggered naked to what he thought was the toilet, but had mistakenly opened the front door and staggered outside when the door clicked shut behind him, locking him out. Banging on the door in an attempt to wake the occupants proved fruitless, so he staggered out on the street into the night stark naked.

    I DON’T THINK SO, AND NEITHER DOES ANYBODY ELSE!!!

    Everyone knows that Hughes committed, or attempted to commit some act of extreme debauchery on the boy. That is why there was a complaint to the police, that is why Hughes resigned as soon as the whole sordid affair was made public, that is why the boy wasn’t charged with making a false complaint or wasting police time and that is also why the Labour Party don’t want anything to do with Hughes until after the election. The fact that they would consider taking him back even after the election demonstrates what extremely low standards of behaviour they are prepared to represent in their desperation.

    “You do not seem to be a pleasant or clean individual when you can pen such horrible spin.”

    I have tried to be as delicate as possible in describing the situation. However, some things are just too disgusting to explain with any degree of decorum in polite company. Not that I ever thought that “polite company” was descriptive of most of the participants in this discussion, of course.

    Bill.
    • Colonial Viper 17.1

      12 June 2011 at 7:18 pm

      Wow BR, you must have been there with a camcorder recording the “debauchery” and following the naked young lad around.

      Can you please also tell me what brand of mouth mints were being used. You know how good that is.

      (Right Wing brains really love this stuff lol)
18. BR 18

    13 June 2011 at 9:16 am

    “Wow BR, you must have been there with a camcorder recording the “debauchery”

    Come on! You and I both know that Hughes is a very depraved sexual deviant. Hughes knows it too, that is why he resigned.

    “and following the naked young lad around.”

    Careful. Your pal Lanthanide will be coming after you with a hammer for calling him a “young lad”.

    “Can you please also tell me what brand of mouth mints were being used. You know how good that is.”

    You’ve got me there. I haven’t a clue what your talking about.

    (Right Wing brains really love this stuff lol)

    Most of the perverts come from the left side of the political divide.

    Bill.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS