Daily review 11/09/2019

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, September 11th, 2019 - 78 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

78 comments on “Daily review 11/09/2019 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Chuck 1
    11 September 2019 at 5:52 pm

    "There are so many senior people within the Prime Minister's office and other senior ministers that know and knew the extent of it that it is inconceivable that [Ardern] wasn't told," Bennett told reporters.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12266753

    Very senior members of Arderns office are named, along with Grant Robinson. If Ardern is to be believed (that no one told her) her closest advisors do not trust her ability to lead. She needs to purge her office to regain control.

    • xanthe 1.1
      11 September 2019 at 5:57 pm

      certainly there are plenty in the LP that need to move on, This just might be a great opportunity for Ardern to clear the decks of some dross

      • In Vino 1.1.1
        11 September 2019 at 6:11 pm

        By any chance do you mean the right-leaning neo-liberals that Chuck might approve of? Quelle horreure!

    • mickysavage 1.2
      11 September 2019 at 6:19 pm

      I would not trust anything Bennett says without independent verification.

    • Anne 1.3
      11 September 2019 at 6:34 pm

      Bennett is dishonest and so is her leader. Bennett is deceitful and she's attempting to project her own image on Jacinda Ardern. Bennett is spiteful and she should have resigned 10 years ago after she sought and released the personal information of two women who (politely) disagreed with her over the axing of night classes for solo mums who were trying to ready themselves for the workforce by gaining a qualification.

      She's also a pernicious leaker… eg. the Winston Peters Super muck-up by Winz of which he had no way of knowing about.

      Believing anything that woman says is like believing in the tooth fairy.

      • marty mars 1.3.1
        11 September 2019 at 6:46 pm

        yep bennett is not to be trusted – she is completely amoral imo where personal information and political point scoring are concerned. She is not showering herself with glory.

      • Stuart Munro. 1.3.2
        11 September 2019 at 11:50 pm

        "like believing in the tooth fairy"

        But much less innocent.

    • vto 1.4
      11 September 2019 at 11:32 pm

      Adern could of course do what Key did when it was discovered "dirty politics" was being run out of his office and LIE.

      Key Key Key = Lie Lie Lie

      Key the liar

      Bennett the liar

    • vto 1.5
      11 September 2019 at 11:37 pm

      And of course Bennett dropped those two citizens in hot tar by intentionally releasing their private personal details.

      Appalling all round she is

    • SPC 1.6
      12 September 2019 at 5:58 am

      To grant Robinson Crusoe his due, no man alone is an island. And no man walks alone in a foe cult society where everyone knows whether your name is Daniel or Michel.

      Knowledge is power and power is not shared.

  2. EnochPower 2
    11 September 2019 at 6:10 pm

    This is getting very ugly for Labour. Sounds as if they all knew about it and it was someone right in amongst the politburo heirarchy good friends with them all. Talk about a cover up. Very very untidy #Laboursmetoomoment

    [I have approved this comment because the system took it to come from a first-time user. However, I have good reason to believe that you are simply trolling here. Permanent ban – Incognito]

  3. Kat 3
    11 September 2019 at 6:12 pm

    This whole “Labour sex scandal” smells like "dirty politics" revenge courtesy of Natz leading muck raker PB, aka dirt agent 000. Can't see this hurting the PM, quite the opposite as she will be seen to act decisively following receiving QC report…..and with a fizz the wee scandal melts into the beltway sunset.

    Meanwhile Winston has a present for PB, and it ain't dead flowers.

    • Buster12 3.1
      11 September 2019 at 6:22 pm

      Yeah its all a national conspiracy. Get a grip there is a sexual pest in labour who needs to be delt with so kicu for #Metoo eh.

      • Anne 3.1.1
        11 September 2019 at 6:39 pm

        Did you get upset about the sexual pests in National?

        • Chris T 3.1.1.1
          11 September 2019 at 6:56 pm

          Jamie Lee Ross is an alleged scumbag, this bloke is an alleged scumbag.

          Only one has been turfed.

          • In Vino 3.1.1.1.1
            11 September 2019 at 7:39 pm

            Turfed?? I understand he is still in parliament, still being overpaid as such.

            I wish I could suffer such a 'turfing'.

          • Wayne 3.1.1.1.2
            11 September 2019 at 9:08 pm

            Whatever one might say about Jamie Lee Ross’s ethics and morals, no one has suggested that it was non consensual. That is not the case in the present case.

            So there is no equivalence.

            • Rapunzel 3.1.1.1.2.1
              11 September 2019 at 9:24 pm

              While that was not a case of assault, which normally is judged in a court of law, it could be wondered how ethical and moral the spouses of the two MPs saw it when they found out what most of the National Party knew and they didn't?

          • Stuart Munro. 3.1.1.1.3
            11 September 2019 at 11:52 pm

            Only one has been turfed – do you mean Mr Sabin?

        • New view 3.1.1.2
          11 September 2019 at 7:50 pm

          You seem to be unable to see the situation Anne. It’s always Nationals fault. Or they have done worse things. What’s wrong with you and some of your like minded commenters. This is Labour’s fuck up not Nationals. If National make political capital out of this that’s politics. Labour is made up of the same sort of people as National. Different philosophy that’s all. The people are no better no worse. At best JA doesn’t know what’s going on in the Labour Party. Worst scenario she does. Take your pick. I had to listen to comments on the project tonight that insinuated that JA is a nice person so could not have known about the situation. If this was happening to National, SB would be called a lying Arse hole I suspect. I could be wrong of course!!? A bit of balance and realism in your comments would be great.

          • Anne 3.1.1.2.1
            11 September 2019 at 8:16 pm

            A bit of balance and realism in your comments would be great.

            Aha, you hit the nail on the head. A bit of balance is exactly what I've been doing. At the moment it's a massive attack on Labour as if this situation has not occurred before. We've seen National go through exactly the same process in the past year without anything like the same hullabaloo.

            The corporate media is behaving disgracefully and I will continue to bring some balance back into the picture whether 'newy viewy' likes it or not.

            • Rapunzel 3.1.1.2.1.1
              11 September 2019 at 8:32 pm

              From what I have seen in the past two days it appears that the "media" are less interested in the "victim(s)", and those they sought to create, of this than their prospects, profiles and pay packets. From Bryce Edwards, to the Spin-Off and the cross matches of one of their writers to North and South the story has been spun, stretched and shared in many forms without any access or concern as to the facts.

              The facts will come from the QC when they have them and have had the time to assess and seek any further details that are relevant. The disgraceful media as you rightly call them saw no need and had no interest in waiting for the truth, they are beyond belief and coming to an election year dangerous if they persist with this behaviour, they want and intend to get collateral damage any way they can.

            • New view 3.1.1.2.1.2
              11 September 2019 at 9:39 pm

              you must have been on holiday when Nationals JLR hit the headlines. For weeks.

    • TootingPopularFront 3.2
      11 September 2019 at 6:36 pm

      Couldn't agree more Kat – it has all of the usual hallmarks of the political hit jobs that John Key's administration was very effective at, the fact that this ridiculous beat-up occupied Soimon's entire interview on Breakfast this morning when Haley lead us to believe they would be talking about Simon and former Chinese spy teacher Jian Yang chaperoning him in the mother country while Simon chatted to the Chinese Security service chief…but no, we had the agenda entirely set by those that would subvert it.

    • Cricklewood 3.3
      11 September 2019 at 7:48 pm

      Jeez so you are telling me its a massive sting operation where young men and woman have gone under cover volunteering in the Labour party so they could invent a sex scandal as revenge for dirty politics.

      Given our sex abuse statistics and rape culture i would say the story as it is being told is far more likely.

      No small wonder we only have one active feminist author here…

  4. Jum 4
    11 September 2019 at 6:39 pm

    Even Bradbury on The Daily Blog mentions Ardern would seek process and then deal with or to.

    That's been done.

    It's getting harder to believe in a NZ that follows the innocent until proven guilty rule, esp in the media.

  5. ianmac 5
    11 September 2019 at 6:45 pm

    I support the integrity of the Labour Party and believe that the flood of misinformation, allegations, inflated and conflated misinformation will hurt the instigators in the end.

    Wouldn't it be great for the "victims" to meet the PM. Given the conflicting stories they would be free to explain eye to eye. (I read somewhere that the sexual victim said she was too scared to speak up about her problem.)

    What comes around goes around I would hope for Bennett.

    • Climaction 5.1
      12 September 2019 at 7:06 am

      whats up with “victims” in commas?

      Its attitudes like that put sexual abuse survivors off making themselves heard.

      It would be good for the PM and her team to meet these poor people and listen to their stories so we don’t have these issues again.

  6. ianmac 6
    11 September 2019 at 6:56 pm

    I think it was Iprent who wrote that those with a complaint such as assault should be shown that the Party cannot process such criminal matters. A victim of say a sexual assault might expect the President or Secretary to investigate and action but they cannot. What if such a victim believed that Harworth would just spring into action and fix everything. When he couldn't, imagine the victim disappointment.

    • greywarshark 6.1
      11 September 2019 at 7:06 pm

      I thought that McFlock's comment in OM at 10.2.1.1 was helpful in presenting a model that could have been followed.

    • weka 6.2
      11 September 2019 at 7:55 pm

      What I understood Lynn to be saying was that the *legal actions available are via the Crimes Act and employment legislation and this is not something Labour can do. There is nothing to stop Labour from also doing its own internal investigation separate from anything that the police or parlimentary services may or may not do. This is what the victims were asking for imo, for Labour to take action about its own organisation, culture and policies. A complaint to the police or PS isn't necessary for that to happen.

      It's also not true imo that Labour could do nothing about the staffer. They could for instance change his duties so he is not doing things like accompanying young members to events. It sounds like some of his job had already changed.

      https://www.metromag.co.nz/society/society-politics/labour-sexual-assault-allegations-jacinda-ardern-morgan-godfery

      Whatever the problem is here, it's pretty clear that Labour handled this badly at the process and natural justice level.

  7. ianmac 7
    11 September 2019 at 6:59 pm

    Mac1. How about this:

    Simon Bridges says the resignation of Labour President Nigel Haworth the sex scandal gripping the party is just the start.

    The National leader says clearly more people are involved in ignoring complaints of sexual assault from 12 people.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12266874

    [link added. Getting sick of having to ask regulars to do this. If you are cutting and pasting/quoting, please provide the source – weka]

  8. Cinny 8
    11 September 2019 at 7:10 pm

    Paddy Gower on Weed 🕺

    Tonight 8.30 pm TV3

    https://www.threenow.co.nz/live-tv-guide/three

  9. Cinny 9
    11 September 2019 at 7:13 pm

    If you are interested in the Tasman District Council election. Meet the candidates in Richmond is currently being live streamed. Mayoral candidates are also there.

    Tune in here

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/115491064/live-richmond-ward-and-mayoral-candidates-meeting

  10. mary_a 10
    11 September 2019 at 7:19 pm

    Why was it necessary to go to Paula Bennett about the alleged assaults and offences, instead of the police? Although I am not judging the complaints of the victims at this stage, not my place to do so, but really, Paula Bennett as the first port of call to seek help???

    With Bennett's involvement, I'm getting a strong stench of dirty Blue politics permeating the air once more as the 2020 election approaches.

    • weka 10.1
      11 September 2019 at 7:24 pm

      they first went to Labour, got treated badly, so went to the media and opposition.

      Lots of women don't take rape complaints to the police, because of low conviction rates and and often brutal process.

      • Chuck 10.1.1
        11 September 2019 at 7:49 pm

        Agree the process is brutal for women/girls. I have been at the coal face supporting victims of abuse, it is just not a case of making a statement to the police that's the easy part (not that any part of the process is easy).

        If Labour had listened and supported the victims/s then as you say weka no need to involve the opposition and media.

      • lprent 10.1.2
        11 September 2019 at 8:29 pm

        Yeah. The process at the police and the legal structures around it needs to be looked at.

        I’d really like to find out what it is like now with the police handling of rape and sexual assualt cases – most of my referential anecdotes are now decades old. More in the Louise Nicholas era.

        There is still a basic problem is that there has to be enough evidence to get the courts to be able to convict and that does require either some corroborating evidence or some kind of adversarial process. I can’t see too many ways that the latter can’t be brutal to the complainant when we’re looking at custodial sentences.

        But I think that complaints or (at the very least) statements should always be made to the police because otherwise people are effectively just encouraging dickheads to do the same thing again. They should also make sure that there is a hard copy from the police about the interview. This keeps the police honest because they seem not file information on the persistent computer systems otherwise.

        Normally this shows up as being done as part of job – then you can hit up their employers. The problem is (as I have been pointing out) the allegations made are that the person involved isn’t an employee of the NZLP and has been doing stuff outside of even party. Which makes this kind of complicated. But that would have been the good avenue – to approach Parliamentary Services if this was being a workplace issue.

        Even if it was a party issue, then there is virtually nothing done lawfully without a clear smoking gun by the NZLP. Besides, they simply don’t have the required resources to even evaluate the evidence. Which is why sending it off to a QC was a mildly good idea.

        Personally I’d like to just do some basic changes to the law.

        Firstly to make confidential settlements a crime. As far as I am concerned they are just encourage awful behaviour by the affluent.

        Secondly to make it so that anyone can report probable assaults and sexual assaults for the police to investigate. We already have laws about wasting police time so I don’t think that would be too much of an issue. But it’d probably help to increase the reporting considerably and help with the power imbalances. This is already the case for a number of crimes like murder and aggravated assaults that the complainant isn’t expected to be the victim.

        I know that whenever I have run across some of these in the past (mostly when I was a barman) that my biggest problem is that I’d like to report it and to trigger an investigation because I knew damn well that the victim was unlikely to do so. I also knew that the arsehole perp would just do it again. It is one of the most irritating aspects of our justice system.

        • Rosemary McDonald 10.1.2.1
          11 September 2019 at 8:45 pm

          I’d really like to find out what it is like now with the police handling of rape and sexual assualt cases – most of my referential anecdotes are now decades old. More in the Louise Nicholas era.

          Kirsty Johnston has done considerable work on this issue…

          https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12042963

          https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12043031

          https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12146421

          But I think that complaints or (at the very least) statements should always be made to the police because otherwise people are effectively just encouraging dickheads to do the same thing again.

          Seriously?

          • lprent 10.1.2.1.1
            11 September 2019 at 8:57 pm

            Thanks, and yeah seriously…

            Unless the laws are changed so that some other body apart from the police are entitled to and (in theory) required to track complaints and offenses about predators, the perpetrators of any kind of assault will just move, change jobs, and do it again. If they do get pulled up at some point, then they claim that it was a momentary problem and walk under some kind of diversion and/or name suppression.

            One of the best bits of evidence for a court would be to show a history of previous complainants and have that admissible by the police / crown. It would clearly show a pattern of behaviour that needs to be dealt with.

            • weka 10.1.2.1.1.1
              11 September 2019 at 9:24 pm

              In order for more women to take complaints to the police, the culture needs to change. Not just in the police and justice system, but wider. This is why, while I understand what you are saying about the current situation and that Labour can't do anything via the Crimes Act or employment law, I disagree that they can't do anything.

              Had the processes and culture in Labour been different, it's possible that a formal complaint to either the police or parliamentary services may have followed. But to make a complaint when Labour are either making things harder from ignorance, or actively putting barriers in the way, that's too much to ask imo. Women know that going to the police is unlikely to do them good and will mostly likely harm them further, so there is a direct conflict between the wellbeing of victims and the wellbeing of society. That's not on women who have been assaulted to remedy. It's for everyone else to sort out.

              There is an argument to be made that rape cases should have their own set of rules because it is unlike pretty much any other crime in important regards. To get any change to process and outcome in the justice system you need lawmakers that understand the dynamics of rape and why it is done, and how systems are complicit in that. The one thing about this case that gives me some hope is that if Labour do step up now and sort their culture out internally, there is potential for them to then foster good lawmakers in the future.

              I haven't followed the story this week very closely, but it's clear that the allegations were handled badly. Not because Labour should have fired the staffer or whatever, but because they should have listened to and engaged with the people making the complaints in a way that protected them and gave them support so that a way to deal with the situation could have been worked out. Even the fact that Labour met with one of the victims on her own is a red flag for me. At the least someone should have been there and written up the meeting and made sure that copies were given to Labour and victim. That's just basic stuff.

              Likewise the whole mess with the emails.

              My advice to anyone engaging with any organisation that has power like this is to always take a witness to any conversation, preferably one that can take good notes. Hopefully now processes will develop/be adopted for getting confirmation that emails have been received (and that Labour will do this with regard for people making complaints, not just setting up systems to protect themselves).

              The onus shouldn't be on the people making the complaint but on the organisation with the resources. That Labour didn't do these things suggests either incompetence or worse. I suspect its incompetence (esp given what Ardern has said), but I think it's also likely there has been some protection of Labour going on by some of the people involved.

            • Rosemary McDonald 10.1.2.1.1.2
              11 September 2019 at 9:28 pm

              Imagine counselling a victim of sexual assault and encouraging them to take their claims to court. The risk is a replay of vivid trauma and the reopening of psychological wounds still raw and tender.

              The reward? A 50:50 shot at justice.

              That's the reality for the few victims brave enough to take their case to court and front the alleged perpetrator of their pain.

              Statistics show barely half of all sexual crimes taken through the judicial process in 2018 resulted in a conviction. In some years the rate has been much lower.

              Ministry of Justice figures show the cases that end up in court are a tiny percentage of sex crimes, the great majority of which (up to 90 per cent) are believed to go unreported. Of that small catchment, less than 10 per cent make it as far as a courtroom.

              Given this brutal distillation process, it would be fair to assume that any case left standing would involve robust evidence and the best possible opportunity for conviction. Sadly, the numbers tell quite a different story.

              The figures suggest that, for every 100 sexual crimes in this country, 99 perpetrators escape justice, many without even needing to face their accuser in court.

              One possible solution…

              There is currently no incentive (due to the risk of imprisonment) for any perpetrator to acknowledge the sexual violence that occurred, nor is there any protection for those perpetrators who do wish to acknowledge what occurred and make redress," it noted.

              Victims did not always want an intimidating court setting, and a prison sentence was not always the priority: in many cases, they wanted acknowledgement of the wrong done and appropriate treatment for the wrong-doer.

              That would involve a significant shift in our understanding of what victims want, although clearly it would not be appropriate for the most serious cases.

              It would also involve doing something even more challenging and significant: listening to victims and empowering them in the process.

              https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/112634934/its-time-to-better-the-odds-for-victims-of-sexual-crime

            • McFlock 10.1.2.1.1.3
              12 September 2019 at 12:09 am

              Here is an article from last year focussing on a defence lawyer who had a string of acquittals for sexual assault trials.

              One of the things she said was that cops weren't being critical enough when investigating sexual assault complaints, giving an advantage to the defense lawyers to present the evidence in a more critical light.

              In a "my word against yours" trial, that means poking holes in the other person's testimony, saying they are unreliable, etc etc etc. And then emphasising "reasonable doubt".

              I just can't help thinking that our adversarial system is particularly unsuited to determining the truth of these cases.

            • mpledger 10.1.2.1.1.4
              12 September 2019 at 10:38 am

              One idea I have heard of if that there is an independent authority that women can make complaints to but nothing is taken further until a certain number of other people make a complaint about the same person. That way the person making a complaint doesn't have to go it alone and the strength in numbers make a conviction more likely.

              TBH – expecting there to be a good outcome from people with no/limited investigative powers, no expertise, experience and constrained by employment and privacy laws it a big ask.

              On the victims side it can go from:

              Lying, mistaken, offensive but not criminal, criminal offending occurred, criminal offending occurred with long-last consequnces

              And on the alleged offenders it can go from:

              Innocent, unintentional, offensive but not criminal, criminal, criminal with pycho/sociopathic tendancies

              (And probably options I can't even think of. ) And each of those people can have honest differences about where the offending was on that spectrum.

              If the justice system can only get it right in a small number of cases with all its resources, it's no wonder highly constrained amateurs are not going to be able to make decisions that are just even with the very best of intentions.

          • lprent 10.1.2.1.2
            11 September 2019 at 10:03 pm

            First link is behind the paywall that I can’t justify paying for.
            Second link is good it sounds like they’re now at least starting to code sexual assault complaints as sexual assaults rather “not a crime” and it shows in the stats.

            Third link is accessible and kind of alarming. 12 adult sexual assault detectives for the whole of Auckland? WTF…

            Good series..

    • Pete George 10.2
      11 September 2019 at 7:31 pm

      It looks more like Bennett was a last resort after various attempts within Labour had been unsuccessful and re-traumatising.

      In Parliament today Bennett said that a former chief of staff of Ardern's knew about the allegations, and also her chief press secretary. And two victims claim to have made a complaint around Christmas time to the director of the leader's office.

      https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/HansS_20190911_053250000/bennett-paula-mallard-trevor

      It is also well documented that they made submissions and had brief interviews with the investigation panel (comprising three people from the Labour Party council). And they claim to have had contacted the now resigned party president Nigel Haworth.

      It seems to have taken getting Bennett involved to get an acceptance that Labour had done a very poor job for the complainants.

    • ankerawshark 10.3
      12 September 2019 at 6:17 am

      Mary A, I really wonder about that too, i.e. going to Paula Bennett….

  11. Anne 11
    11 September 2019 at 7:36 pm

    Ardern dealt to Bennett today at QT.

    She put a bunch of questions to Ardern expecting to tie her in knots and all Jacinda did was answer "yes" or "no". It was all over in just over 2 mins. at which point Madam B had achieved nothing:

    https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=208737

    • Pete George 11.1
      11 September 2019 at 7:48 pm

      Maybe it wasn't Bennett's intent to achieve anything but set up a possible problem for Ardern. The final question and answer:

      Hon Paula Bennett: Does she stand by her previous statements that victims should go to one of their line managers and that no senior people in her office had received a complaint?

      Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: At the time that I made the statement, yes.

      Soon after in General Debate Bennett claimed that two victims went to a line manager (about Christmas time). If Ardern "made the statement" after this she could have talked into a trap.

  12. Ad 12
    11 September 2019 at 7:38 pm

    The sexual assault media damage just wipes out the momentum that Ardern had assiduously manufactured over the previous 10 days with a slew of announcements.

    These include the suicide prevention launch, Te Reo Week, the freshwater NPS discussion document, the Team New Zealand boat launch, the DIRA draft legislation, and bunches of other smaller ones.

    So I know they mean well.

    But this lot have 8 months of government left before they are in full campaign mode for 2020.

    It completely beggars belief to me that after 9 years in opposition and 2 years in power they are still generating little groups with think-pieces. It means when actual news hits such as sexual assault claims, there's very little public goodwill built up from delivering hard results to New Zealand, so the PM looks brittle again.

    I'm less convinced that this is a government that is good for New Zealand.

    • weka 12.1
      11 September 2019 at 7:45 pm

      still better than anything else on offer, although I still hold out some hope that a L/G govt would bring out the best in Labour.

      • Cricklewood 12.1.1
        11 September 2019 at 8:09 pm

        I'm starting to think a massive clean out is needed to fix what is looking like a toxic culture.

        I'm going to take the victims word and if their complaints had been covered up to the point where Jacinda Ardern was directly lied to by senior party officials (as it seems by her comments) things are very wrong.

        It's really sad.

        • weka 12.1.1.1
          11 September 2019 at 9:26 pm

          An opportunity here for her to make some good changes, fingers crossed.

          National being arseholes won't be helping that of course.

  13. Sacha 13
    11 September 2019 at 8:32 pm

    Auckland's mayoral 'race' continues to produce more crap than gold – as RNZ's Tuesday head-to-head between the two main candidates showed.

    Reading the transcript is way better for the blood pressure than listening to the trainwreck, but only for the brave in any case: https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018712681/auckland-mayoral-debate-phil-goff-v-john-tamihere

  14. greywarshark 14
    11 September 2019 at 9:18 pm

    Thinking about Auckland i was looking at the local political groups and read about City Vision and saw that Mike Lee is not seeking backing from them this time.

    I wonder if he is still going on, he may be getting tired of the eternal roundabout.

    • Ad 14.1
      11 September 2019 at 9:28 pm

      He and Christine Fletcher are two of the most bitter people I have ever met.

      They were both not too bad in their day.

      At Council meetings they are just destructive, but they will of course both get back in because their name recognition is strong.

      • greywarshark 14.1.1
        11 September 2019 at 9:57 pm

        They would be pretty much opposites in their views I take it. Pity about Mike Lee but he has been fighting battles for so long and seen the tatty results when he has lost that his winning opponents produced so I guess that has soured him.

    • Sacha 14.2
      11 September 2019 at 10:46 pm

      Mike Lee is not seeking backing from them this time

      Trump fired Bolton before he could resign, OK.

  15. Treetop 15
    11 September 2019 at 9:37 pm

    Dirty politics is not going to help the person who has raised the sexual assault.

    National failed all the children who were sexually assaulted in Social Welfare care and faith based care. At least Labour is trying to address the damage to then young lives and not sweep it under the carpet or expect people to not be affected .

    What National did to people who had a sensitive ACC claim was disgusting for the 9 years they governed. I had to wait 8 years to resume my claim because of how little faith I had in the National government regarding a sensitive claim. The woman I spoke to at ACC understood. Basically the last government could not be trusted to understand the personal cost and I was not going to waste my precious energy on their bull shit.

  17. Rosemary McDonald 17
    11 September 2019 at 10:17 pm

    Goodness gracious me! Health Select Committee grows some balls and delivers right (or is that more rightly 'left'?) royal bollocking to Pharmac, Medsafe and the Misery of Health.

    It would seem that a common anti -depressant was replaced with a generic prompting 500 complaints of adverse effects. None of which raised safety or quality problems.

    Members not happy, Chair Louisa Wall…

    … questioned whether patients who were stable for years should have had their medications changed in the first place.

    "It seems that for me some of the patients on these drugs, they've been used as guinea pigs, 'lets just switch them, lets just see what happens to them and if they're adverse maybe we can switch them back,' that's really unacceptable to be honest," she said.

    and Michael Woodhouse was none too pleased…

    "It's fair to say the Select Committee were disappointed with the lack of empathy from Medsafe and the Ministry of Health and the finger pointing that went on between three government agencies effectively that said that there were certain things that could been done, but it's not our responsibly.

    "That's a frustration," he said.

    Mr Woodhouse said the committee will make sure the right thing is done by the petitioner.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/398580/ministry-of-health-medsafe-grilled-over-med-brand-switch

  18. Stuart Munro. 18
    12 September 2019 at 12:06 am

    It seems that Boris's suspension was unlawful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fK8Dm7_YAko