Chris Bishop’s use of snapchat causes problems

Written By: - Date published: 2:51 pm, February 11th, 2018 - 153 comments
Categories: national, Politics - Tags:

Some unwelcome publicity for National MP Chris Bishop in the Sunday Star Times this morning.

National’s Hutt South MP Chris Bishop was confronted before last year’s election by a mother upset at the older man messaging her daughter and other minors.

Witnesses said Bishop was taken aside and asked to stop what he was doing.

“I wanted to confront him as many parents felt very uncomfortable that their children were messaged,” said a mother who wanted to remain anonymous.

“He admitted it straight away and thanked me for bringing it to his attention.”

Another mother, whose 13-year-old daughter was allegedly in daily contact with Bishop for a week or two on Snapchat, took to Facebook to vent her frustration.

The mother, who also wanted to remain anonymous, allegedly wrote to MP Paul Goldsmith to complain about Bishop’s behaviour.

None of the parents were concerned that Bishop’s intentions were anything other than misguided.

Interesting that this was not reported at the time which was before the last election. These sort of issues can spiral out of control. I can imagine that right now at National HQ there are a few worried people.

This is what Bishop has said about the article on his Facebook page:

There is a pretty upsetting story about me in the Sunday Star Times this morning (I won’t link to it).

Since being elected in 2014 I have placed a real priority on engaging with young people and supporting youth, particularly in the Hutt Valley. As one of the younger MPs in the Parliament I see this as an important part of my job. I have enjoyed being involved in things like setting up the Hutt City Youth Awards and Student Leaders’ events, and supporting the Young Enterprise Scheme, to name a few. During 2017 I spoke to many young people at schools and other events about the importance of voting and our democracy.

As many will know, I am very active on social media and I have corresponded directly with thousands of constituents through various platforms. My intention in being accessible on social media is to help me be an effective MP and it has proven a good way of engaging directly with constituents including young New Zealanders who generally aren’t that engaged in the political process.

In mid-2017 it was suggested to me that I open a Snapchat account, which I did. This proved very popular and lots of people sent me messages through it. I got into the spirit of things and would often reply to messages sent to me. Most messages were of support from people in Lower Hutt, including young people, for me/National.

However, after a few weeks I heard third hand that some parents were unsure about their kids communicating with MPs on social media. I adopted a policy of having a “Story Only” account and only having SnapChat friends that I knew personally.

Every election the media write stories about how young people don’t vote, don’t see any reason to vote, and how politicians are out of touch. I’ve set out to change that. It would be sad if politicians were put off engaging with young people because of stories like this.

The comment is fair enough. But he should say this directly to the media rather than claim some sort of martyrdom.

153 comments on “Chris Bishop’s use of snapchat causes problems ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. The Chairman 1
    11 February 2018 at 3:39 pm

    “These sort of issues can spiral out of control. I can imagine that right now at National HQ there are a few worried people.”

    Indeed.

    He could be stepping down tomorrow if the party decide he’s not worth the risk.

  2. mary_a 2
    11 February 2018 at 4:02 pm

    One of the teenagers, a 13 year old girl is a minor and not someone a grown man unknown to her personally, should be engaging with on social media.

    Quite odd. Can’t understand why Bishop decided to open a SnapChat account in the first place, inviting young people to communicate with him online! If he wanted to speak with youth, then more suitable options would have been to go to schools or held meetings in public.

    • Leonhart Hunt 2.1
      11 February 2018 at 4:03 pm

      His reply, https://www.facebook.com/ChrisBishopMP/posts/1629292283784317

      There is a pretty upsetting story about me in the Sunday Star Times this morning (I won’t link to it).

      Since being elected in 2014 I have placed a real priority on engaging with young people and supporting youth, particularly in the Hutt Valley. As one of the younger MPs in the Parliament I see this as an important part of my job. I have enjoyed being involved in things like setting up the Hutt City Youth Awards and Student Leaders’ events, and supporting the Young Enterprise Scheme, to name a few. During 2017 I spoke to many young people at schools and other events about the importance of voting and our democracy.

      As many will know, I am very active on social media and I have corresponded directly with thousands of constituents through various platforms. My intention in being accessible on social media is to help me be an effective MP and it has proven a good way of engaging directly with constituents including young New Zealanders who generally aren’t that engaged in the political process.

      “In mid-2017 it was suggested to me that I open a Snapchat account, which I did. This proved very popular and lots of people sent me messages through it. I got into the spirit of things and would often reply to messages sent to me. Most messages were of support from people in Lower Hutt, including young people, for me/National.

      However, after a few weeks I heard third hand that some parents were unsure about their kids communicating with MPs on social media. I adopted a policy of having a “Story Only” account and only having SnapChat friends that I knew personally.

      Every election the media write stories about how young people don’t vote, don’t see any reason to vote, and how politicians are out of touch. I’ve set out to change that. It would be sad if politicians were put off engaging with young people because of stories like this.”

      • Leonhart Hunt 2.1.1
        11 February 2018 at 4:08 pm

        Dose it matter if he talking to kids on snapchat? hes not engaging in anything wrong or troubling, we are letting our fear that he “could be” get the best of us.

        IF he was a female member of parliament this would not be an issue, mostly due to very successful campaigns of Men are predators and stranger danger.

        If hes trying to engage children in the political process and talking to them I don’t see how that’s really an issue, maybe i’m missing it because I don’t have kids, but hes not any kind of danger, I think we are letting our own fear dictate what’s ok.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.1
          11 February 2018 at 4:17 pm

          If that’s what he’s doing, it’s impossible to tell because the messages get deleted automatically. His career is one #metoo away from being over.

          Ask your teacher friends what protocols they adopt when communicating with pupils outside of school.

          • Leonhart Hunt 2.1.1.1.1
            11 February 2018 at 4:20 pm

            true, most of my teacher friends left the professions due to the risk of being a #meetoo and now only teach 16+.

            Not for the fact they were/have done anything wrong but the perception that they might/are.

            I agree its a huge risk, but are we condemning him simply because of fear?

            • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.1.1.1
              11 February 2018 at 4:28 pm

              Last week a girl was murdered in her bed. A doctor has appeared in court. The police were seeking her cell-phone.

              Some fears are rational.

              • Leonhart Hunt …
                11 February 2018 at 4:39 pm

                31 March 2017, A lawyer says a Dunedin man who was the subject of false sexual allegations will not be compensated for the time he spent behind bars.

                Christopher John Ferguson (31) faced eight charges — two of rape — from two complainants but his trial before the Dunedin District Court fell apart this week when one of the girls said she had fabricated her story.

                — He spent 7 months in jail, lost his job, his wife left him and he will find it very hard to get employment, and it was all false.

                but we can trade stories like this all day, the crux of the matter is he hasnt done anything wrong, but we think he might/is and that’s the problem.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  11 February 2018 at 4:45 pm

                  You’re right: Bishop left himself open to false allegations too. That just compounds the stupidity.

                  if stupidity is what it is.

                • McFlock …
                  11 February 2018 at 4:49 pm

                  It’s like a manager who keeps shoddy financial records.

                  It’s often a cover for embezzlement, but even if it’s not, it’s silly.

            • McFlock 2.1.1.1.1.2
              11 February 2018 at 4:31 pm

              Some might be.

              But it’s not even so much about the fear thing, although it can be seen as a bit weird. Teenagers get crushes, or do stupid shit. It’s just as much about keeping you safe from them as it is about keeping them safe from you.

              OAB brought up teachers on communication outside school – most are exceptionally careful about their social media use, for example they don’t FB friend their students.

              I do recall one blanket “name suppressed” case in the paper where an MP was stalked by a teenage girl – if the MP had been as careless as Bishop, it might have screwed their career.

        • The Chairman 2.1.1.2
          11 February 2018 at 4:34 pm

          “Dose it matter if he talking to kids on snapchat?”

          Depends if he’s [Lets avoid this – MS] the young mind of minors to vote National or merely encouraging them to vote?

          In today’s PC world merely looking at a kid can see you in trouble. We had a tradesman looking for an address a few years back. A young school girl thought he was looking at her, which she then reported, hence the police started looking for him. All on the grounds that he was suspected of looking at her. He didn’t talk or approach her.

          • The Chairman 2.1.1.2.1
            11 February 2018 at 4:55 pm

            Then again, Key got away with fondling the hair of young girls right on public TV. And as far as I’m aware, not one parent complained. So I guess who you are also comes into play.

        • Ankerrawshark 2.1.1.3
          11 February 2018 at 7:28 pm

          It’s also a problem because in doing this mr Bishop is giving young teenage girls the impression that its ok to engage with older men on social media. It’s not unless it is very close family.

    • Muttonbird 2.2
      11 February 2018 at 4:09 pm

      Didn’t know 13 year olds could vote.

      • Leonhart Hunt 2.2.1
        11 February 2018 at 4:11 pm

        they can in 5 years, early engagement could secure future votes and kids can have a large impact on the opinions of their parents, imagine if your kids came and talking to you about social housing would you listen to them… probably but will most likely switch off from the same discussion with an MP (regardless of the party)

        Think it is as targeted advertising.

        • Muttonbird 2.2.1.1
          11 February 2018 at 4:24 pm

          Targeted political advertising to 13 year olds is inappropriate too.

        • One Two 2.2.1.2
          11 February 2018 at 4:28 pm

          [Silly comment. There is absolutely no proof of this comment deleted – MS]

          Regardless of the nature or intent, that is what this is…

          • McFlock 2.2.1.2.1
            11 February 2018 at 4:42 pm

            🙄

            Defamation.

            Regardless of your stupidity or divine knowledge, that looks like what you just did.

            • weka 2.2.1.2.1.1
              11 February 2018 at 4:50 pm

              It’s not clear what kind of [Sorry Weka I agree the previous comment was really stupid. Just tweaking your comment – MS] they meant. Myself, I just see the comment as really stupid because it’s conflating [Sorry Weka I agree the previous comment was really stupid. Just tweaking your comment – MS] with political targeting, and with normal political engagement.

              • Stunned mullet …
                11 February 2018 at 4:56 pm

                Accusing someone of [Sorry I agree the previous comment was really stupid. Just tweaking your comment – MS] in this instance has a pretty narrow meaning …

                [link deleted – weka]

                • weka …
                  11 February 2018 at 5:00 pm

                  I know what [Sorry I agree the previous comment was really stupid. Just tweaking your comment – MS] is thanks. In this case the comment was in direct response to another comment that had a different framing.

                  • Stunned mullet …
                    11 February 2018 at 5:16 pm

                    Cool, good to know where the bar’s set.

                    • weka …
                      11 February 2018 at 5:35 pm

                      One of the other authors will look at it, but afaik to be defamatory you have state something directly about a specific person. Implication is not enough. I’m not a lawyer though.

                      That’s not free rein to use implication as a work around though. TS still has other standards.

              • McFlock …
                11 February 2018 at 5:25 pm

                Plausible stupidity is an option in this case, true.

                It still feels a bit bloody low, though.

              • One Two …
                11 February 2018 at 6:10 pm

                Weka, I have not conflated anything…nor was it an attempt to do so….perhaps you could ask if you’re unsure…

                That’s what you do with other commentators here [ fair enough too]….request that they ask you..[no I’m not going to provide an example]

                I’ve called it for what might actually be considered as….[Lets be careful – MS]….

                Are you suggesting such activity is political targeting/normal political engagement?

                • weka …
                  11 February 2018 at 6:13 pm

                  if you want to not conflate [Lets be careful – MS] with [Lets be careful – MS] then I suggest using both words not a single word that could, especially in this context, be read two ways.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    11 February 2018 at 6:25 pm

                    After MS’s moderation I think it’s probably best to delete all references to that word – including the link to the Wiki article that MS missed in Stunned Mullet’s comment.

                  • One Two …
                    11 February 2018 at 6:37 pm

                    The conflation was those who leapt [for what purpose] on my response to an article which is centered around a poorly thought out approach to engagement of young people in a political context….using a social media tool…

                    Ask questions, as you have requested commentators to do….it’s a sound approach…

                    It seems as if certain words are now going to be censored….ok….

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      11 February 2018 at 6:45 pm

                      Potentially defamatory statements will always be moderated here. Unless you’re a lawyer, you have no basis for whining about it.

                      You’re lucky not to simply receive a ban. I suspect McFlock nailed the reason for that at 5:25pm.

                    • weka …
                      11 February 2018 at 6:49 pm

                      MS *is a lawyer and as OAB points out it doesn’t matter what commenters think when it comes to protecting the owners of the site.

                    • mickysavage …
                      11 February 2018 at 6:55 pm

                      Nothing personal 12 I’m just very risk adverse.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    11 February 2018 at 6:47 pm

                    See my previous reply to you. As of right now I’m sure anyone reading this thread can figure out what the moderated parts refer to.

                  • One Two …
                    11 February 2018 at 7:03 pm

                    Weka, to your comment at 6.49pm

                    …..certain words are now going to be censored…. ok …(my bold)

                    My use of…. “ok”…., is an acknowledgememt to the circumstances….

                    Circumstances, being protecting the site owers…

                    Edit: MS 6.55pm…risk averse…appropriately so…

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    11 February 2018 at 7:14 pm

                    I can’t reply to directly to MS, and the Wikipedia article on the subject is still linked in Stunned Mullet’s comment at 4:56 pm.

                    • weka …
                      11 February 2018 at 7:24 pm

                      Deleted now, mostly to get you to stop @ing me 😉 (MS had already moderated that comment so I assume it was ok).

            • One Two 2.2.1.2.1.2
              11 February 2018 at 6:05 pm

              Political [Best we dont go there – MS], McFlock

              At best to engage minors in political …[what] in the hope that in at leasr 5 years they might …[what] for…. [whom]…

              It’s not ‘political targeting’ or ‘normal political engagement’, as weka has tried to frame it….

              It’s certainly not defamation, as you’ve tried to frame onto my comment…

              • McFlock …
                11 February 2018 at 7:08 pm

                And yet see what happens when you refuse to speak with precision? People err on the side of caution.

                • One Two …
                  11 February 2018 at 8:24 pm

                  Who refused, McFlock?

                  ‘People’ , jumped all over what they saw as an opportunity…..gratuitously so in some instances…

                  MS, erred on the side of caution….

                  Yourself (false accusation, was it in not using a question mark after ‘defamation’ ?) and a number of others decided on pack mentality, including personal insults….

                  I take no responsibility for reader/interpretational limitations, nor can I tailor comments I make to help those types out….

                  • McFlock …
                    11 February 2018 at 8:34 pm

                    I’ve never seen you take responsibility for anything you’ve explicitly or implicitly stated.

                    And no, I don’t think it was a false accusation – I strongly suspect you deliberately didn’t include “poilitical” as a qualification in order to let people draw a wider, more repugnant, inference.

                    And I also think that having been confronted about it and moderated, you’re trying to evade responsibility for your comments.

                    Any insults are an optional extra. Now I’ve got stuff to do.

                    • One Two …
                      11 February 2018 at 8:56 pm

                      I strongly suspect you deliberately didn’t include “poilitical” as a qualification in order to let people draw a wider, more repugnant, inference.

                      Not only do you not see, but you can’t read/interperet or comprehend at an elemetary level, so it seems…

                      I’ll say this one time (bold so you can’t misuse it), then request you let go of the grudge you’ve developed, which is likely causing your school boy reactionary statements…

                      Your ‘strong suspicions’, are incorrect

                      You’re scaping the basement….

                      Let it go , McFlock

                    • McFlock …
                      11 February 2018 at 10:26 pm

                      I don’t believe you.

                    • One Two []
                      11 February 2018 at 10:44 pm

                      How could you believe me…

                      You don’t even believe yourself…

                      Honesty is unrecognizable to those who are dishonest to themselves….

                      Next time you author an article, be sure to respond to comments using using your commentator style ….

                      More honest that way…eh

                    • McFlock …
                      11 February 2018 at 11:01 pm

                      Whatevs.

                      Either you used that word in the knowledge of its connotations of illegality, or you were familiar with the word and yet were completely oblivious to its current use in law.

                      Yes, you being that stupid is a possibility, but the alternative is that some stupid little jerk thought they were being smart by merely implying illegality. I think the latter suits your sanctimonious commenting style to a tee.

                    • One Two []
                      11 February 2018 at 11:15 pm

                      I’ve told you that you’re incorrect, and you can’t, won’t, don’t accept my word…

                      “whatevs” tells me you’ve conceded…at the very first word…but had to keep writing…[because]…

                      …because you don’t believe in your own position…therefore beligerance is what you’re left to play with…

                      Let it go, McFlock…

                      I still think you’re better than this…

                    • McFlock …
                      11 February 2018 at 11:22 pm

                      Ah, interesting – “whatevs” tells you I’ve conceded? If that’s true, maybe you really don’t know what that other word means to an awful lot of people.

                      Buy a dictionary.

                    • One Two []
                      11 February 2018 at 11:33 pm

                      I’m not interested in what that other word means to an awful lot of people…

                      What other people think, has nothing to do with what I know the intent of my original comment is..

                      You can’t accept my known intent [read all the comments, it’s there] though…and now you’re running out of options…

                      The next move you make should be equally transparent…

                    • McFlock …
                      11 February 2018 at 11:45 pm

                      But that’s the point right there: people aren’t mind-readers, so if one wants the message one intends to communicate to be the message that people actually receive, one needs to understand what the words in that message mean to an awful lot of people.

                      Even putting aside my outright accusation, surely the fact that your use of a word was close enough to defamatory that your comment was moderated would give you pause for thought. Maybe you should be interested in what words mean to others, rather than just yourself.

                    • One Two []
                      11 February 2018 at 11:57 pm

                      It started with your [now admitted outright accusation]…which only a few comments ago, was your “ strong suspicion” …

                      Bro you’re all over the place…messy…

                      Now stop with all the red herrings, deflections and inconsistancies because I’ve told you that your outright accusations are incorrect…that’s the last time I’m going to say it…

                      What’s your next move…not many choices left…

                    • McFlock …
                      12 February 2018 at 12:19 am

                      Yeah, I still have real difficulty believing that even someone as up their own arse as yourself could use that word without knowing what it means to other people in that context.

                      In that case, omitting the word “political” was a deliberate move.

                    • One Two []
                      12 February 2018 at 12:28 am

                      Of course it’s difficult for you…we’ve covered that aspect a while back…

                      Tying yourself into ever smaller knots, McFlock…

                      Just say it…bring yourself to make that final statement…

                      You can do it…I believe in you…even if you don’t believe in yourself…

                      Say it…and let’s move on…eh

                    • McFlock …
                      12 February 2018 at 11:29 am

                      gosh, you think you’ve actually argued a point.

                      The problem is, you might be feigning extra stupidity in order to conceal the deliberate nature of your unqualified use of the word in question.

                    • One Two []
                      12 February 2018 at 2:47 pm

                      No conviction, McFlock…

                      You can’t lie to yourself forever…because that’s what you’re doing …lying to yourself…

                      I do not, lie…but you can’t accept that…

                      So, you are literally refusing (yes you projected that yesterday, already) to back up your words with the ultimate statement…by calling me a liar…instead you bounce around making contradictory, and infantile statements…

                      But I still be believe in you, and that you can find it in yourself to take my word…and accept that I am being honest with the comments and statements I’ve made…

                      Or, have the conviction in yourself to call me a liar…and truly believe it in your heart…

                    • McFlock …
                      12 February 2018 at 4:05 pm

                      Oh, now “liar” is another step entirely.

                      It’s reasonable to assume that you believe now that you didn’t intend to imply the commonly-understood implications of the word you used.

                      While at the same time believing that you had no idea the context in which that word is often used these days.

                      While at the same time believing that you quite clearly and specifically commuinicated to most readers your perfectly innocent message that used that word.

                      While at the same time still believing that your communication skills are beyond criticism.

                      In short, it’s reasonable to believe that cognitive dissonance is your major intellectual pasttime.

                      So while I think your denials are unreliable and you did indeed intend to make lewd implications, I’ve no idea whether your denials are lies or merely a genuinely-held misrecollection.

                      edit: do you have any further questions about the specifics of my low opinion of you?

                    • One Two []
                      12 February 2018 at 5:30 pm

                      I’ve given you my response, in a truthful and honest way…

                      You don’t believe it, and can’t accept that my stated position has remained unchanged…

                      You’ve danced around the tulips lacking the plums to back up your black and white accusation*…

                      * You have no self conviction [because you don’t believe in yourself] and are therefore a dishonest human being…

                      Not a bad human being, just operating a very low level of self awareness which is evident through your words…

                      You’re in a big club..it’s called ‘The masses/Herd’…

                      Mostly decent people, who don’t yet understand their own deceptions…and aren’t looking for them…

                      So I’ll not be responding to you on this blog site…ever again…

                      Be well, McFlock

                    • Stunned mullet …
                      12 February 2018 at 5:38 pm

                      “So I’ll not be responding to you on this blog site…ever again…”

                      Perhaps Paul will do it instead ?

                    • McFlock …
                      12 February 2018 at 7:23 pm

                      Oh no, this herd-member will no longer receive the declamations of the arbiter of knowledge. Whatever shall I do?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      12 February 2018 at 8:03 pm

                      A vast emptiness, a perfect vacuum, nullity. None of these can be yours, now and forever. Come over to the dark side McFlock. We have all the best tunes.

          • Stunned mullet 2.2.1.2.2
            11 February 2018 at 4:45 pm

            Silly Sockpuppet !

            Putting this site at risk is a major no no.

          • Ross 2.2.1.2.3
            11 February 2018 at 5:12 pm

            Regardless of the nature or intent, that is what this is…

            So when Jacinda met with young people in the lead up to the election, she was [Just tweaking this comment. Best we dont go there – MS]? Nah, didn’t think so…

            Meanwhile, Jarrod Gilbert has penned an article about Peter Ellis whom he calls a martyr to “deranged prejudice”.

            http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11989759

            • One Two 2.2.1.2.3.1
              11 February 2018 at 6:20 pm

              You’re the one talking about ‘nefarious reasons’, Ross

              Perhaps go and check with all the parents…then you might have an idea…

              As for the Bishop snapchat situation…

              Some of those parents are not too pleased, are they…

              • Ross …
                11 February 2018 at 6:29 pm

                One Two,

                I’m not aware any parents have accused Bishop of acting inappropriately. If they felt he had acted inappropriately or illegally, they might have been expected to approach police. There’s no indication they did so. (From the Stuff article: “None of the parents were concerned that Bishop’s intentions were anything other than misguided.”)

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  11 February 2018 at 6:34 pm

                  Apart from the examples given at the top of the page that is:

                  National’s Hutt South MP Chris Bishop was confronted before last year’s election by a mother upset at the older man messaging her daughter and other minors.

                  Witnesses said Bishop was taken aside and asked to stop what he was doing.

                  “I wanted to confront him as many parents felt very uncomfortable that their children were messaged,” said a mother who wanted to remain anonymous.

                  Do you think it sounds as though “a mother” thought Bishop’s behaviour was “inappropriate”, or not?

                  • Ross …
                    11 February 2018 at 8:40 pm

                    It’s hard to tell what she thought other than she was allegedly uspset that an older man had messaged her daughter. Presumably the same mother wouldn’t be upset if an older male was assisting her daughter into an ambulance. Some specifics in this case would be helpful.

                    • One Two …
                      11 February 2018 at 9:44 pm

                      Are you ok, Ross ?

                      Do you understand what a false equivalence is?

                      The 13 year old, may not…the 13 year olds mother, probably does….

      • Infused 2.2.2
        11 February 2018 at 5:37 pm

        Why does McDonalds have happy meals. Why does Microsoft give away software to school kids.

        • Incognito 2.2.2.1
          11 February 2018 at 9:13 pm

          Kinder surprise? Why is the NZ Herald not behind a paywall? Why is porn freely accessible on the internet? Why are you commenting here?

    • Draco T Bastard 2.3
      11 February 2018 at 5:26 pm

      One of the teenagers, a 13 year old girl is a minor and not someone a grown man unknown to her personally, should be engaging with on social media.

      Why not?

      Can’t understand why Bishop decided to open a SnapChat account in the first place, inviting young people to communicate with him online!

      Perhaps because he’s wanting to engage young people in politics and social media is an efficient way to do so?

      If he wanted to speak with youth, then more suitable options would have been to go to schools or held meetings in public.

      But highly inefficient and time consuming and it comes back to that ‘why not’. What makes talking in schools more appropriate than talking over social media?

      • McFlock 2.3.1
        11 February 2018 at 5:51 pm

        What he should have been able to say is “my team and I agreed to expand my social media profile especially to encourage youth to engage with the political system. Conversations occurred during normal business hours, and responses were coordinated with my staff to ensure responses were accurate.”

        etc

        Frankly, politicians shouldn’t be professionally using any social media on their personal phone – far too easy to start tweeting at 3am even if sober lol

    • Gabby 2.4
      11 February 2018 at 8:33 pm

      How would he know that?

      • Muttonbird 2.4.1
        11 February 2018 at 9:02 pm

        Gobby, he snapchatted one kid daily for two weeks. He might have cottoned on that he was talking to a child after the first few days.

  3. One Anonymous Bloke 3
    11 February 2018 at 4:04 pm

    He’s upset? 🙄

    “You’re making it worse!”

  4. McFlock 4
    11 February 2018 at 4:12 pm

    Funnily enough, I can understand why someone suggested he open snapchat to connect wiv da yoof (because “social media”), but the fact they didn’t see this coming is a bit tone-deaf. Snapchat ain’t FB.

    He probably thought he was going to be voted leader by a youth wave in the membership in a few years time. Whoops.

  5. weka 5
    11 February 2018 at 4:44 pm

    When I was 14 I told family that I could be PM one day if I wanted (that was the late 70s and it was in a girls can do anything kind of conversation about politics). If social media had existed then and I had access, I would totally have been engaging with MPs.

    I’ve never used Snapchat and don’t have any real sense of what that specific medium means in terms of appropriateness, but MPs engaging on social media in general with teens seems reasonable. What should be at issue is *how that is done, and it does seem like Bishop and National weren’t managing that well.

    As for anything else going on, there nothing in the news report to suggest inappropriate or criminal behaviour and some of the parents have said that’s not their concern. If he was on Snapchat with teens last year during the election campaign, and then stopped when he was asked to by a parent, that seems the end of it.

    I am curious why this has come up now, and why the Stuff story is so light on detail.

    • BM 5.1
      11 February 2018 at 4:49 pm

      I am curious why this has come up now, and why the Stuff story is so light on detail.

      Dirty politics hit piece.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 5.2
      11 February 2018 at 4:50 pm

      Well, if I were a newspaper and I wanted this story to run for a while, I’d have a follow-up planned for tomorrow. Assuming there were more to tell.

      Maybe they’re fishing in case someone else comes forward.

      Maybe this story is all there is to tell, and it’s still ‘newsworthy’.

      Edit….or maybe, just maybe, he snubbed Judith Collins and the teenage girls are Cameron Slater and Jordan Williams in drag. After all, it’s the National Party.

      lol *snap* BM.

      • weka 5.2.1
        11 February 2018 at 4:58 pm

        Timing though?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 5.2.1.1
          11 February 2018 at 5:03 pm

          I actually like the Dirty Politics scenario quite a lot – perhaps Bishop is just in the wrong faction while leadership is an issue.

          As I say though, if a newspaper editor has enough facts there’s nothing to stop them drawing it out a bit.

          • weka 5.2.1.1.1
            11 February 2018 at 5:06 pm

            (BM thinks it’s Labour not National).

            National’s leadership issues could explain it though. I don’t know anything about where Bishop fits in all that.

      • Nick 5.2.2
        11 February 2018 at 5:03 pm

        Really, Cameron Slater and Jordan Williams in drag…. I knew it.

    • Leonhart Hunt 5.3
      11 February 2018 at 4:55 pm

      FYI I work in Ecommerce and have had a bit of insight into social media and business demographic targeting)

      Snapchats demographics are very young for social meda, https://www.statista.com/statistics/373940/snapchat-us-age-reach/

      as you can see by the above link the percentage of 12 – 17 is very high for a social media platform, snapchat is actually the correct engagement tool for this age group. (id link the vs all other social media but its paywalled)

      • BM 5.3.1
        11 February 2018 at 5:01 pm

        Face book is now Mum book young people don’t really use it

      • Muttonbird 5.3.2
        11 February 2018 at 6:04 pm

        It’s quite clear who uses snapchat and they’re not of voting age, or any other age for that matter. Bishop would have known this. He’s wayyyy out of his depth there – the arrogance of the man thinking he could bring political conversation to a platform like that.

        I hope it not to be the case, but there’s probably more to come on this.

        • mikes 5.3.2.1
          11 February 2018 at 6:23 pm

          Well, he is the National Party’s spokesperson on youth issues… So I guess communicating directly with youth about their issues is his job. Youth are the experts on youth issues.

          So you think he should talk to some other demographic to get info on youth issues? Maybe their parents? (Because we all know that when we were that age our parents were like, ‘SOooo in tune with our issues right..not!’

          I loathe the National Party but this is obviously a hit piece.

          • Muttonbird 5.3.2.1.1
            11 February 2018 at 6:38 pm

            So I guess communicating directly with youth about their issues is his job.

            Not that directly!

            I’m amazed that the supposed next big thing in National could be so dumb.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 5.3.2.1.2
            11 February 2018 at 6:53 pm

            communicating directly with youth about their issues is his job

            Sure. As McFlock says above:

            “my team and I agreed to expand my social media profile especially to encourage youth to engage with the political system. Conversations occurred during normal business hours, and responses were coordinated with my staff to ensure responses were accurate.”

            Many many teachers manage to communicate directly with youth without falling into Snaptraps. The ones who fail are treated with suspicion and learn not to repeat the behaviour.

  6. Anon 6
    11 February 2018 at 5:38 pm

    TBH any parent worried about this should never have let their child install snapchat in the first place, this is hardly Chris’s fault.

    • weka 6.1
      11 February 2018 at 5:42 pm

      It’s patently his responsibility if he goes into a social media platform that isn’t appropriate.

      Parents can’t actually control children’s access to social media in the way you imply.

      • Infused 6.1.1
        11 February 2018 at 5:44 pm

        Yes they can.

        • weka 6.1.1.1
          11 February 2018 at 5:46 pm

          Unless they have them in direct line of sight 24 hours a day, they literally can’t.

          • Leonhart Hunt 6.1.1.1.1
            11 February 2018 at 5:59 pm

            Weka there is access software you can use to limit site access when they use computers (& tablets/phones) you control (and some are pretty good and hard to bypass) as well as if they are under 13 they should not have a facebook account (its against the TOS) if you msg facebook they will close the account.

            you can absolutely police devices under your control, you cannot do anything about devices not in your control, school computers, friends places, public access points etc. (you could urge friends parents to also use access control software but it takes work to keep it updated)

            But dont think this will stop cyberbullying, as other children can “bully” without the person being on said media (bully by proxy) nor alleviate all the issues social media presents like fake news, ideological targeting, predatory behaviour etc, etc.

            • weka 6.1.1.1.1.1
              11 February 2018 at 6:05 pm

              ” you cannot do anything about devices not in your control, school computers, friends places, public access points etc.”

              Yes, this is what I was referring to. Anyone who thinks that every 13 yr old can be controlled when out of their parent’s eye doesn’t know what they are talking about.

              Young teens need protecting, MPs should be taking care of themselves.

          • mikes 6.1.1.1.2
            11 February 2018 at 6:24 pm

            Yes they can.

    • Muttonbird 6.2
      11 February 2018 at 6:18 pm

      Umm. Bishop is the adult in these exchanges. It’s up to him to verify who he is speaking with and whether it is appropriate. Clearly he did not do that in this case.

      • Anon 6.2.1
        12 February 2018 at 7:34 am

        So you’d exclude children from politics because it’s “inappropriate” to talk to them /at all/? Riiiight.

        • Muttonbird 6.2.1.1
          12 February 2018 at 8:51 am

          It’s inappropriate to private message them for sure. Talk to them in a classroom, ffs.

  7. weka 7
    11 February 2018 at 6:11 pm

    I talked to some people on twitter and from what I can tell the problem with Snapchat specifically is twofold. One is that it’s largely a private platform, not a public one, so there is no external oversight of what is happening.

    The other is that it’s designed to not keep records of the messages, they disappear permanently after a period of time. This means no public record of what an MP is doing.

    Hence not a good medium for politicians.

  8. Jim 8
    11 February 2018 at 6:25 pm

    Let’s look at Christmas Bishop’s prevous employment where a lot of the advertising/ sponsorship done by the tobacco industry is aimed at getting children hooked on smoking. The government over the last 3 decades has legislated to reduce this. [Please be careful with your language – MS] to vote NACT seems similar to me.

    • Muttonbird 8.1
      11 February 2018 at 6:40 pm

      Hadn’t thought of that. He’s decided to use his marketing skills developed while working for big tobacco on young people for political purposes.

    • Sacha 8.2
      11 February 2018 at 7:25 pm

      Moderators: looks like you may need to be firmer to stop people using that word.

      • Jim 8.2.1
        11 February 2018 at 8:50 pm

        Sacha, context is everything. Both Chris Bishop and the parents have agreed that there was no [Please be careful of your language – MS] in the snap chat conversations. However Chris had no right to discuss political ideas with 12 and 13 year olds without the permission of their parents. So for a national MP to discuss his National Party based views to a minor in a family that does not share his views is very serious indeed. As such I do not think my comments above are inappropriate.

        • Sacha 8.2.1.1
          11 February 2018 at 9:09 pm

          The word has clear (and possibly actionable) connotations in any context involving interactions between older men and young women, hence being moderated above. For some reason that judgement has not been consistently applied to all comments – yet. You know this, so do not play cute about it.

          • Jim 8.2.1.1.1
            11 February 2018 at 9:34 pm

            Sacha I am not being cute. I have been involved in Court cases as a professional in this area and am confident that this word has different legal meanings stated in different context. It is not my intention to bring the Standard into disrepute.

  9. adam 9
    11 February 2018 at 7:05 pm

    Reading this post, just made me think of John Key and Graham Capill. And the princess parties of another blogger. I’ll stop there, but the list is longer.

    What is it with Tory political types, and their fascination with young women?

    • Chuck 9.1
      11 February 2018 at 7:17 pm

      adam trying hard to stereotype…

      Whats it with labour types like Darren Hughes and their fascination with young men?

      See I can do it too.

      • Sacha 9.1.1
        11 February 2018 at 7:21 pm

        Nice try. You need more than one example for it to be a ‘type’ in any case.

      • adam 9.1.2
        11 February 2018 at 7:25 pm

        ROFL, one, you got one. And he had no charges pressed. Funny that, and he resigned and to this day is an innocent man. So I’d say your reaching for lies to back you up. Not unusual for you chunky, lying that is.

        And I’ve got a list. You want me to start listing more? Well OK Chunk lets add one more Tory muppet who has done odd things to women, Colin Craig.

  10. newsense 10
    11 February 2018 at 8:15 pm

    Direct marketing to minors, using things they can associate with, is something he might have learned from tobacco industry!

  11. Muttonbird 11
    11 February 2018 at 10:31 pm

    It’s revealing that Farrar has done a special post attacking the victims this afternoon on a Sunday.

    It must be serious!

    I suspect he got a call from either the Hutt South MP’s office, or the office of the leader of the opposition himself.

    • Ross 11.1
      12 February 2018 at 7:09 am

      Farrar has done a special post attacking the victims

      There are victims? Would you explain who was injured and the extent of their injuries because I’m prety sure none have been reported…of course it’s possible that Bishop has been the victim of a smear.

  12. Cinny 12
    12 February 2018 at 7:35 am

    Been wondering about the timing of this info…. is simon bridges trying to get rid of any rivals for the leadership?

  13. outofbed 13
    12 February 2018 at 9:42 am

    So its fairly obvious to anyone with the least modicum of intelligence. that messaging young people on snapchat where your messages are deleted, is not a great idea.
    When you are an MP its bat shit crazy.
    I know that political parties have social media guidelines. And I can’t imagine that the Nats would not have told all their candidates Snapchat is a no go area.
    Bishop is an intelligent man so what is going on here ?
    Bishop worked for a tobacco company he uses snapchat to talk to young girls.
    The man is a sociopath like so many Tories.
    Cant see why thats a surprise