Daily review 18/12/2019

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, December 18th, 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 18/12/2019 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Anne 1
    18 December 2019 at 6:16 pm

    Oh dear, Paula's looking a bit annoyed. I wonder why?

    • Dennis Frank 1.1
      18 December 2019 at 6:37 pm

      The female QC couldn't find evidence to substantiate the complaints. Complainant #1 couldn't provide validation of her claim that she sent Labour the email attachment and also her testimony of verbal reporting could not be substantiated. Also, I gather a relationship had been happening between her & her attacker and I don't recall that being disclosed in prior reportage. If so, the QC may have felt complainant #1 wasn't being entirely honest.

      Ball's in her court now, so Paula may await further appeals for help. Will the complainants form a team and get an effective representative other than a Nat MP? If they agree the QC is not giving them natural justice, then that would be sensible for them to do.

      • ianmac 1.1.1
        18 December 2019 at 6:39 pm

        Sounds as though the complainant had a gripe with her 8 months boyfriend but once she embarked on punishment maybe it ran out of control. If that is so, then the complainant must need help/support.

      • Peter 1.1.2
        18 December 2019 at 6:50 pm

        Paula may indeed await further appeals for help. Will you be seeking any from her?

        • Dennis Frank 1.1.2.1
          18 December 2019 at 7:06 pm

          "Through tears, the woman said she was frantically worried about one of the other complainants, who had "gone AWOL" and had not been in contact with anyone since reading the report. A spokesperson for the prime minister confirmed "mental health" issues had been discussed with a support professional on Wednesday afternoon, but maintained the issue raised was not more time needed, but the release of any information at all."

          "The woman said she had been told that any release process would be done with full collaboration with the complainant group. "They haven't done that."" https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/118311710/labour-sexual-harassment-complainants-told-pm-of-suicide-risk-from-reports-release

          If true, the group of complainants seems to have a valid grievance. Does Labour not understand the concept of re-victimisation??

          • pat 1.1.2.1.1
            18 December 2019 at 7:11 pm

            if true…perhaps the QC will have another enquiry

          • Anne 1.1.2.1.2
            18 December 2019 at 7:34 pm

            It looks to me like the complainants didn't want anything published at all which, if correct, is ridiculous.

            If nothing was released then Labour's opponents would have accused them of a cover-up and demanded another inquiry. They could have kept the whole thing going almost through to the next election.

            Having read two or three reports on the findings plus listened to a nine minute press stand up on the Herald website, there is nothing in the released details which identify anybody.

          • ianmac 1.1.2.1.3
            18 December 2019 at 9:23 pm

            Remember that the complainants publicised their "concerns" even enlisting the help from Paula Bennett.

            They knew there would be a summary report.

            They read the Draft and Executive Report before it was published.

            No person has been named or identified.

            So why would the group be surprised?

      • Adrian 1.1.3
        18 December 2019 at 7:38 pm

        alleged'' attacker, Dennis Frank. no evidence of attack found. Was the complainant previously a Parliamentary staffer who used to work for Bennett or someone else in the Nat Party?

        • Dennis Frank 1.1.3.1
          18 December 2019 at 7:54 pm

          Yes, alleged is correct. The original reportage referred to several complainants, and to the one referred to as #1 today as a Labour volunteer. I gather they went to Bennett after being unable to get Labour folk to engage with their concerns.

          • pat 1.1.3.1.1
            18 December 2019 at 8:00 pm

            How much engagement required…we had the internal enquiry, the review of the internal enquiry, an independent review of the enquiry …and the complaints were found to be 'unsubstantiated'….at some point there needs to be an acceptance.

            The complainants may well need support but that isnt going to be provided by a media rehash and then theres the fact that there are a number of people who appear to have been slighted and lost their jobs.

            • Anne 1.1.3.1.1.1
              18 December 2019 at 8:11 pm

              Bradbury over at TDB is brutal about the Spin Off article which threw this story into orbit:

              So this Spinoff hit job destroyed the young staffer, destroyed the President, defamed Simon Mitchell and allowed the insinuation that Jacinda covered it all up, all in the name of middle class woke feminism and hashtag activism?

              That’s the journalism everyone is racing to support with donation is it? Puritanical character assassinations from virtue signalling evangelicals?

              How charming.”

              https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2019/12/18/the-spinoff-witch-trial-ends-in-sexual-assault-inquest-that-finds-serious-questions-of-credibility/

              • Dennis Frank …
                18 December 2019 at 8:24 pm

                Jumping the gun perhaps. More to the saga may emerge tomorrow. Mental health issues are looming as a determinant. Victimisation can be as much perception as reality, eh? And in a mesh of competing grievances, feelings drive outcomes more than rational behaviour…

                • pat …
                  18 December 2019 at 8:34 pm

                  perhaps?

                • Anne …
                  18 December 2019 at 8:40 pm

                  May I repeat one comment from TDB because I think it sums up the story and the reason for its being very well:

                  This isn’t the first time that the Parliamentary precinct has been troubled by a love affair gone wrong.

                  When it happened to National, Labour behaved in a compassionate, exemplary and non-partisan way.

                  When it allegedly happened to Labour, the Nats dived in boots and all, determined to dirty and drag down the least likely PM to cover up sexual misbehaviour, without one iota of evidence apart from what seeped from their dirty little minds.

                  It’s the only way that they know how to perform, and totally irresponsible when all sorts of collateral damage always occurs.

                  I was only aware of Bennett trying to dirty Ardern, but if the Nat men were doing it too, then they are unspeakable lowlifes. Which we already knew. How dare they.

                  Nice one.

                  • Anker …
                    18 December 2019 at 10:10 pm

                    One of the things that came out of the report that I find interesting is that Maria dew reviewed 28,000 text and email messages between the complainant and the alleged perpetrator….they had an eight month relationship. My god. That is an awful lot of messaging. I also inferred that messaging after the alleged assault didn’t support that it had happened, but that is just my inference.

                    i think the complainants response to the release of the summary is also manipulative. They went to the media and Paula Bennett about what happened, given their account. After an independent review, with findings they clearly didn’t like they want the report not to be released……

                    • Anne …
                      18 December 2019 at 10:52 pm

                      Yes, I picked up on that too.

                      It should be remembered also that the complaints concerning sexual harassment were really the realm of the police to investigate.

                      I can understand a singular woman being reluctant to go to the police because I've been down that road and the police at that time could not have been less supportive.

                      But 4 or 5 young people are making roughly the same complaint about the same person then they could have gone to the police together and supported one another. But they didn't.

                      I can understand them being upset their complaints were not upheld but it looks to me at this stage their expectations were way to high in the first place.

                    • weka []
                      18 December 2019 at 11:51 pm

                      I don’t know, given they now have a large number of people they don’t know, including prominent people, talking about them in public and essentially calling them liars, I think it’s quite understandable that they wouldn’t want to go to the police.

                    • weka …
                      18 December 2019 at 11:49 pm

                      the 28,000 messages were between all complainants and the respondent.

        • McFlock 1.1.3.2
          18 December 2019 at 10:27 pm

          The evidence included the complaint.

          What the QC found was that some inconsistencies meant that they couldn't determine whether, on the balance of probabilities, it occurred.

          The review is not an exoneration.

          • pat 1.1.3.2.1
            18 December 2019 at 10:31 pm

            "It found "insufficient evidence" to back up the most serious allegations and ruled critical elements of the complainant's version of events were incorrect.

            It also said the complainant had since admitted providing "misleading information" to the investigation."

            https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/405772/sexual-assault-allegations-against-ex-labour-staffer-not-established

            • McFlock 1.1.3.2.1.1
              18 December 2019 at 10:35 pm

              Which is not the same as an exoneration.
              An exoneraton would be to say that the allegations were completely fabricated and could not have been correct.

              • Incognito …
                18 December 2019 at 10:37 pm

                … nor the same as lying.

              • pat …
                18 December 2019 at 10:38 pm

                "However, "this investigation did not find any misconduct or serious misconduct that would warrant disciplinary action under the New Zealand Labour Party Constitution".

                https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/405772/sexual-assault-allegations-against-ex-labour-staffer-not-established

                • McFlock …
                  18 December 2019 at 10:48 pm

                  The respondent had already admitted to aggressive behaviour and inappropriate sexual comments, and had been reprimanded for them, the report said.

                  However, "this investigation did not find any misconduct or serious misconduct that would warrant disciplinary action under the New Zealand Labour Party Constitution".

                  Seems a bit inconsistent, that?

                  • pat …
                    18 December 2019 at 11:08 pm

                    and?…theres nothing there

                    • McFlock …
                      18 December 2019 at 11:11 pm

                      Are you not hearing the mention of aggression in the first bit, or the concerns about consent in the second bit?

                  • pat …
                    18 December 2019 at 11:16 pm

                    are you not hearing “nothing that meets the threshold”?

                    • McFlock …
                      18 December 2019 at 11:23 pm

                      Insufficient evidence isn't evidence of absence.

                      And it's bloody weird to state that consent is in doubt but there doesn't seem to be a serious problem.

                      There's aggressive and overbearing behaviour, sexual comments, and issues of consent. That sure ain't exoneration.

                    • pat …
                      19 December 2019 at 12:03 am

                      "It found "insufficient evidence" to back up the most serious allegations and ruled critical elements of the complainant's version of events were incorrect.

                      It also said the complainant had since admitted providing "misleading information" to the investigation."

                      That is a very telling statement in an inquiry by an officer of the courts.

                      It is important to remember there are multiple parties to this sad affair and they all deserve a fair hearing not innuendo that the allegations were founded but unproven

                    • weka []
                      19 December 2019 at 12:08 am

                      how did they mislead? Why did they mislead? Was it intentional? What was the context?

                    • pat …
                      19 December 2019 at 12:11 am

                      That is what the QC will have examined and considered before writing her report

                  • pat …
                    18 December 2019 at 11:28 pm

                    you appear to be suggesting that the QC would be accepting of unacceptable behaviour, whereas I trust that she has examined the evidence and determined that while not ideal the behaviour wasnt of a level that required more than an apology, which has been given

                    • weka …
                      18 December 2019 at 11:56 pm

                      We have no way of knowing if that's because there was insufficient evidence, or because nothing bad enough happened.

                      re the consent issue, the impression I had was that Dew didn't comment on this because it happened in the context of a personal relationship and that was outside of Labour's responsibility. She wasn't saying there were no consent issues.

                    • McFlock …
                      18 December 2019 at 11:59 pm

                      No.

                      I'm suggesting she found some unacceptable behaviour and issues of concern, but that she did not find conclusive evidence concerning the most serious allegations.

                      In both directions: she did not find conclusive evidence of a sexual assault, nor did she find conclusive evidence that the allegation had been fabricated against an innocent man.

                    • weka []
                      19 December 2019 at 12:07 am

                      can’t say it much clearer than that.

              • Ann Elborn …
                18 December 2019 at 10:56 pm

                “The victims account of the alleged sexual assault was incorrect in several critical respects in relation to the events of that evening”

                ”her allegation was also inconsistent with her own numerous contempaneous Face book messages with the respondent during that month and the responding months”

                from Maria Dews report.

    • Dennis Frank 2.1
      18 December 2019 at 6:51 pm

      As of Oct 28 Trump had tweeted witch-hunt 294 times. https://www.thenation.com/article/trump-witch-hunt/

      So it'll be up over 300 now. Someone ought to tell him that witches are women & he's a man, so he needn't be so paranoid.

      And "academic and feminist Silvia Federici, who has been tracking witch hunts since the 1980s, notes that most contemporary witch hunts take place in countries recovering from colonialism, exploitative policies by the World Bank or the IMF, or Christian missionary activity. When you add up all the incidents in the past 30 years, a conservative estimate holds that 30,000 people have been killed in witch hunts. These witch hunts have taken place in every continent except Antarctica. Thirty thousand in 30 years divides out to two to three people per day".

      I wonder why she describes the victims as people rather than women. Perhaps that's due to tacit acknowledgment that those identifying the victims can't tell the difference between men & women. Blame the education system.

      • francesca 2.1.1
        18 December 2019 at 7:30 pm

        Becauses witches can be men too.Some of the witches hunted at Salem were men

        • Dennis Frank 2.1.1.1
          18 December 2019 at 7:50 pm

          In the English cultural tradition I grew up with, the male equivalent was wizard. However I take the point that language evolves randomly, like mum turning into mom in the USA.

          • I feel love 2.1.1.1.1
            18 December 2019 at 8:58 pm

            Nope, even the infamous witch hunts in ye olde England had men witches accused, a witch finder general even tested himself by drowning to see if he was a witch. He wasn't and drowned.

          • Gabby 2.1.1.1.2
            18 December 2019 at 11:16 pm

            Love the way you manage to home in on the vital key nub of the kernel at the heart of the matter frankadiddlio.

    • arkie 2.2
      18 December 2019 at 7:10 pm

      Trump seems panicked.

      Interesting slip of the pen in this cnn listicle on the letter:

      11. "Now you are trying to impeach me by falsely accusing me of doing what Joe Biden has admitted he actually did."

      Apples and oranges here. Again, Biden called for the firing of the prosecutor as part of a coordinated — and transparent — strategy to address corruption in Ukraine. Trump got on the phone with the Ukrainian president and, contrary to the notes prepared for him in advance of the meeting, freelanced to ask him to investigate one of his main rivals for the GOP nomination.

      https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/17/politics/trump-letter-nancy-pelosi-impeachment/index.html

      CNN thinks Biden should have run as Republican too?

  3. Anker 3
    18 December 2019 at 6:50 pm

    Interesting finding from the review labour conducted into the sexual assault and bullying claims.

  4. Sabine 4
    18 December 2019 at 7:54 pm

    surely we can blame cows, right?

    https://www.ecowatch.com/satellite-methane-leak-2641613644.html?utm_campaign=RebelMouse&socialux=facebook&share_id=5149681&utm_medium=social&utm_content=EcoWatch&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2H4m94dM3ZrDTgAg4hDYvc4X0Ram4bsXY6uEONlZT_jIul-l17hquuwsA

    n February 2018, a blowout at a fracked natural gas well in Belmont County, Ohio forced around 100 nearby residents to flee their homes, as The New York Times reported. Now, a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Monday has revealed that the local incident had major implications for the global climate crisis.

    Researchers used satellite data to determine that the blowout caused one of the largest methane leaks in U.S. history. It released more methane in around 20 days than the oil and gas industries of France, Norway and the Netherlands do in a year, Bloomberg News reported. The results raise questions about the ability of the oil and gas industry to control methane leaks.

  5. weka 5
    18 December 2019 at 7:55 pm

    Popping in to remind everyone that absence of evidence doesn't mean absence of wrongdoing. If we look at rape trials, where the odds are stacked against women who have been raped, and where men get found not guilty, the men are not proven innocent.

    I have no idea what happened in this case, and I haven't read the report yet, but I do feel qualified to comment on how sexual abuse gets discussed by the left and we are still a long way from doing well on this. Irrespective of what happened, we can choose to not run 'the complainant lied' lines.

    It also doesn't follow that National being opportunistic, lying arseholes means that there was no problem.

    I'm arguing for nuance here and some attempt to see this situation in the context of rape culture not just being about Labour.

    Here's the report if anyone wants to read the whole thing directly. That’s unfortunately to Scribd but the best version I’ve found so far.

    • weka 5.1
      18 December 2019 at 8:01 pm

      also, thanks to the people already getting this and trying to push for a different approach.

    • Blazer 5.2
      19 December 2019 at 7:19 am

      'and where men get found not guilty, the men are not proven innocent.'

      How is this any different from any other trial and verdict regarding either men or women?

      • Psycho Milt 5.2.1
        19 December 2019 at 8:29 am

        It's no different – there always seem to be a few who think "not guilty" = "proven innocent," which it doesn't. In this case, we have some people thinking "not established" = "didn't happen," or worse, "false claim," and those people need to be told to pull their heads in.

  6. SHG 6
    18 December 2019 at 10:12 pm

    Hilarious to watch everyone here bending over backwards to not believe the victims.

    • pat 6.1
      18 December 2019 at 10:20 pm

      are you impugning the integrity of the QC?

    • Incognito 6.2
      18 December 2019 at 10:22 pm

      Everyone??

      Why do you find this amusing?

    • Gabby 6.3
      18 December 2019 at 11:19 pm

      Alleged victims shggy.

    • roblogic 6.4
      19 December 2019 at 12:29 am

      Repulsive how the Nats think its a big joke

    • Peter 6.5
      19 December 2019 at 2:39 pm

      I think it's likely that everyone here heard a lot more from the QC than the victims. She heard from the victims and came up with a report and summary. People read that and believed that.

      I can imagine the 'victims' being slightly less objective than the QC too. Can you?

      So is it a surprise whom people believe?

      In terms of those things, the comment 'hilarious to watch everyone here bending over backwards to not believe the victims' could be replied to with 'hilarious to watch some people bending over backwards to not believe the QC' or 'hilarious to watch everyone here bending over backwards to believe the male victim.'

      Apparently the QC investigated the situation, no doubt with access to all sorts of people and other evidence and told it as she saw it. Why should she not be believed?

  7. The Al1en 7
    19 December 2019 at 12:08 am

    Sadly, amongst the left infighting and attempted point scoring over the staffer's misconduct case, not one mention today about the labour government's minimum wage rise for next year, leaping up to $18.90ph.

    At least someone has their eye on the real game.

  8. adam 8
    19 December 2019 at 12:33 am

    Wonder if paula's face is as such is becasue her hero is a alleged kiddy porn (and maybe a kiddy fucker) collector.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?objectid=12295067

  9. pat 9
    19 December 2019 at 12:35 am

    Monbiot has a plan…or at least the beginnings of one.

    "Something has changed: not just in the UK and the US, but in many parts of the world. A new politics, funded by oligarchs, built on sophisticated cheating and provocative lies, using dark ads and conspiracy theories on social media, has perfected the art of persuading the poor to vote for the interests of the very rich. We must understand what we are facing, and the new strategies required to resist it.

    If there is a formula for the new demagoguery, there must also be a formula for confronting and overturning it. I don’t yet have a complete answer, but I believe there are some strands we can draw together."

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/18/demagogues-power-rewilding-party-trust-power-government

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.