- Date published:
8:02 am, January 25th, 2019 - 205 comments
Categories: articles, journalism, Media, national, newspapers, same old national, Simon Bridges - Tags: david fisher, jami-lee ross, sarah dowie
The secret is now out. A few of us on the left have known the identity for months but have chosen not to publish it. The next time that someone says the left is just like the right remind them of this.
David Fisher in the Herald has the details:
Police are investigating a text message, allegedly sent from the phone of National Party MP Sarah Dowie, to her former colleague and ex lover Jami-Lee Ross.
The police investigation is said to focus on whether the text message – which came after the break-up of their extra-marital relationship – constituted an incitement to self-harm, which is punishable by up to three years in prison.
Ross, 33, has previously named Invercargill MP Dowie, 43, as one of the women with whom he had an extra-marital relationship while National MP for Botany.
The text message included the words: “You deserve to die.”
Ross initially received the message in August but has claimed reading it two months later led to considering self-harm. He was taken into mental health care shortly after.
The text message raised questions over whether there was a breach of the Harmful Digital Communications Act, passed under National and voted for by Dowie. The law regulated digital communications, including text messages, making it illegal to urge someone to self-harm.
Police are still investigating. I am not sure why it should take so long. Normally all you need is a copy of the text, a statement from Ross and see if Dowie wants to make a statement.
No doubt the investigation will look at the Crimes Act and specifically section 179 which prohibits inciting procuring or counselling suicide and the Harmful Digital Communications Act and specifically section 22 which prohibits causing harm by posting a digital communication. The first offence has a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment and the second two years. Dowie is not looking at jail time, in fact on the scale of things I don’t actually think it warrants a conviction given the circumstances, but if a conviction occurs then her seat will be vacated.
Of course there is also the reputational judgments that will be made. This Southland Times editorial (Dowie is the Invercargill MP) from November last year hinted darkly that it knew of Dowie’s role and talked about hypocrisy.
There’s nothing worse than politicians who are hypocrites, and right now the National Party falls right into that category.
If you ever wanted to read about a cop-out, here’s a cracker one for you.
The National Party, it seems, is “moving on”.
Well, surely the public deserves more than the glib response that came from its chief press secretary on Friday.
Moving on from what exactly?
An editorial published on October 25 raised the point that another issue had arisen from the Jami-Lee Ross saga, in relation to the “You deserve to die” text, said to be from a colleague with whom he acknowledged he had been having an affair.
Was it possible this text could be a breach of the Harmful Digital Communication Act, and could the sender of the text really stay in her role as an MP?
And it responded to National’s glib reply by saying this:
Don’t forget that front and centre of National’s core values for building a society are two important words. Personal Responsibility.
Where is the personal responsibility of a party that won’t answer questions. And where is the personal responsibility of the MP who reportedly sent the “you deserve to die” text?
Surely by now the MP in question would front up and take personal responsibility.
This will be yet another test of Simon Bridges’ leadership abilities or lack thereof.
But let’s get on with the media circus that will no doubt erupt.
Please keep your comments respectful.
My question is why this “During the course of Ross’ exit, National’s deputy leader Paula Bennett said there were issues raised with the rogue MP. “What was put to him was inappropriate behaviour that is unacceptable from a married Member of Parliament.” was only ever applied to one of the MPs concerned?
That excuse also raises questions in regard to other behaviour where reference is only ever being made by Paul Bennett to complaints against Ross as not being “official”, that I am pretty sure the same or similar “wording” has been used to try and “magic” away the allegations about MP Barry and how she conducted herself with staff and in her duties.
Why should anyone give a damn?
Yeah; this is why the private life of MP’s used to be … private.
Unless there is an element of political compromise involved (ie blackmail), or gross hypocrisy, it should be off-limits.
I’m willing to accept the traditional silence and cover ups can be problematic too; but when the emotional lives of people become like scraps of meat for dogs to fight over in public, it gets ugly fast.
IIRC Bridges initial justification for sacking JLR was ‘conduct unbecoming’. It will be interesting to see if the same standard will apply to Dowie.
I think it was pretty ugly before it was released to the media. And it was Bridges own doing. The police and the speaker wanted it to be done privately but Bridges wanted his meat in public.
You have to be just a little sympathetic to Bridges situation. In the current social climate you get no credit whatsoever for remaining silent in these situations. Indeed if it comes out later that you have known about a story like this, and as Party Leader you weren’t seen to be ‘doing something about it’, you get crucified anyway.
On the other hand, going public the way he did, merely poured petrol on the fire.
There probably was no winning with this one.
Because of the harmful digital communications act which was introduced to tackle a very real problem around new technology. Children and young people die from online bullying and it’s important to show there are consequences and that it will not be tolerated.
Well said Ad
This is tabloid rubbish
i don’t know,
you are the party of personal responsability but expect it only from others
you are the party of morals and godly behavior but only when it allows you to bash people who have children they can’t afford (hoskins), or when double dipping on the housings welfare (bill english), or when outing people who complain about resources for further education are being pulled (paula bennett), or when you want to pull the pony tail of a young women at her workplace to the point of her crying and your wife asking you to ‘stop it dear’ (john key)
you are the party that collects funds from the brethren (fundamentalist christian who would frown up on adultery and female MP’s 🙂 )
you are the party that is hiring ‘Christians’ that advocate fornication for procreation only and only when married to that person 🙂 (that guy who ran for new lynn – what was his name again?)
so yeah, hypocrisy much in and everywhere in the party without mates
but as others will tell you, mainly to send something like this via an electronic device is considered bullying and might even be unlawful?
in saying that i just would like to know where the party without mates finds these people, i mean you are 43 years old and you have a bit of fun outside of your marriage, the one thing to do is to keep it shut down if only to not embarrass your family and kids, not to send texts hoping someone would kill themselves.
Well, its better than talking about the state of the nation…I mean if you were in the Labour Party what would you rather talk about…someones sordid private texts at the end of an affair…or the fact that the Government is now spending $27 million a week on subsidizing an overpriced rental market???
What levers have they got to pull Siobhan. The settings are in place for housing, Labour possibly implemented them themselves and now the handles have been taken off. They don’t seem to be able to go to the people for the solution to housing. Trailer parks, well managed could be quite suitable accommodation with little plots and a safe playground, and near bus transport. Reality check for Labour but that could be a start and spit in the eye of all National detractors.
The people who don’t do anything themselves, don’t know how to do anything but stand round watching and running down any activity – they operate the NZ
major factory of Tall Poppy cutters. World renowned. Famous for it.
Labour needs to go out and make a run for it. Be as brave as the kids playing What’s the time Mr Wolf. Plan, wait till the ducks are lined up ready to go, and rush forward before National knows what is happening, (though I am sure that there will be someone to leak plans).
But keep working at the top end like they have plans for but give low income people able to accept an opportunity and start having a good life, the chance to get started. Work with those people, and then encourage them to hold workshops to help others to move forward. That would be building capability, resilience as we all hope that Labour will get back to doing. Shane Jones might try this sort of thing in the regions with the nevvies.
They could grow up, bite the bullet and kick austerity to the curb by disengaging from National Party spending constraints (ie The so-called Fiscal Responsibility Pledge’) and engage in a massive State House building program where they don’t leave all the power and decision making in the hands of property developers and ma and pa investors and landlords and people planning on making money from endlessly buying and selling the so called ‘family home’.
The New Deal in America, and the creation of the NHS and Council Housing in the UK (and NZ for that matter) didn’t happen with leaders who are willing to sit around and smile benignly as they frantically try to keep the property market afloat with new customers (ie kiwibuild).
Hi Siobhan, I am heartened by the silence from Labour on the JLR issue.
Maybe, just maybe, Aderns leadership will help NZ politics Improve compassion and kindness around parliament.
The other aspect of all this is both adulterers have family and that is where another group of victims are.
The reason for the Fiscal Responsibility budget is that while in opposition Labour were constantly accused of wanting to “spend like drunken sailors” ( a direct quote from Steven Joyce). They have had to go carefully to demonstrate to business in NZ that the economy wasn’t going to go to hell in a handcart as soon as they took office. Even the leaders of the banks were getting annoyed by big businesses gloomy outlook and told them to pull their heads in lest they create a self fulfilling prophecy of a doomed economy. Admittedly they maybe have gone too much the other way. Child Poverty Action certainly think so but the next budget will be the Wellbeing budget so hopefully after a year of proven fiscal responsibility they can loosen the reins a bit and reform the welfare system as planned. Anything remotely resembling socialism in this country usually gets shouted down by howls of protest about bloody commies (check twitter it’s happening already). There definitely needs to be a re-evaluation of some policies after a year of idealism but they also have a year of experience behind them so hopefully they can crack on.
Not to mention the Fiscal Responsibility Act 1994. THis was largely put in in the wake of the disastrous fiscal management of the Muldoon era. Essentially despite a hell of a lot of advance warning of shifts in the economic outlook for NZ, there wasn’t a particularly useful move to a more sustainable economy. Instead there was government by fiat and inflation. As far as I could see, solely to maintain a National government with no ideas.
Not to mention that the government needs to maintain a legal structure that gives some security to citizens and companies. When I started working in that environment, one of the things that I noticed was that successful corporates in NZ were the ones who had the most courtiers at the court of the National government. That wasn’t an business environment worth preserving.
The effect of the FRA is that policies should be made carefully, fully budgeted, and signalled well in advance. That is how a government should operate. Not in some half-arsed populist boondoggle way spraying out taxpayer paid benefits to which ever courtier caught the minister’s ear last.
ah, so after a year of avoiding anything that sounds of Socialism or implies ‘spending like a drunken sailor’…NZ business will be convinced that we should infact start down that path…care to take a bet on that?
I mean calling it ‘Fiscal Responsibility’ by definition means increased spending is inherently NOT fiscally responsible.
If we wait for permission to change the social and economic settings we will be waiting forever..loosening the reigns a bit is never going to get us anywhere, though I guess it will allow the comfortable middle classes to feel like ‘somethings being done’, even if its just more kiwibuild houses for their kids.
Good comment. I wonder after reading it, would you feel that a four year term would give us a better chance of rounded policies, implemented and being tested for usefulness before next election?
Only a handful of lefty tragic haters will want to wallow in the personal lives of Dowie and Ross. No laws have been broken, nothing will come of this.
Hate txts are illegal. In saying that if she only sent one I’d let it slide if I was the cops .
Naki man, as our Ozzie cousins have said “tell him he’s dreaming”.
Where something will come of this is the poll driven, Crosby textor (no pun intended) managed, lack of leadership displayed from the nats.
Do you include Paula Bennett in the handful? After all it was her that began the wallowing.
That’s the problem with keeping things secret – I thought it was a different MP entirely who sent the texts.
I think, in general, “You deserve to die” is on the right side of the line – it’s not saying the person should kill themselves or that someone else should. BUT if the person is known to be suicidal or previously suicidal then, in that context, I think it does.
And a decision that depends on context, is not a good fit with politics. Noone gets to explain context in a sound bite.
You are unwise mpledger in saying That you deserve to die is at all excusable as a
comment to say face to face or through media. The tension in society is such that such a comment only raises the level towards somewhere it being carried out in reality.
It is not excusable. It might not be an offence to say someone deserves to die, but it is certainly questionable grounds. It is however certainly an offence to actively aid and abet suicide. Section 179 of the Crimes Act says so.
Who said anything about suicide. You are conflating stuff. It is free speech to say to someone you are angry with, that you deserve to die surely. But to say it to a political compatriot, to put in print, makes it more concrete and angry words these days need to be controlled.
“He says she told him in that text to kill himself.
The night police picked him up he had texted her telling her “you get your wish” and that was what had triggered the call out leading to his admission to hospital.”
Am I still conflating stuff?
You’re getting ahead of yourself Robert Glennie. Way ahead.
It’s sad text motivated by an acrimonious end to a relationship. That is the context.
It’s a gigantic leap to consider that its a deliberate incitement to aid and abet a suicide attempt.
In your pious world the text may ‘not be acceptable’. But your position essentially defines you as an intolerant puritan who is completely out of touch with contemporary life – including the breakdown of relationships.
Perhaps you’ve never experienced a relationship breakdown? If so you’re not in any position to make judgements.
Did you read the article?
Obviously not. So, here is the basis of my commentary.
No doubt the investigation will look at the Crimes Act and specifically section 179 which prohibits inciting procuring or counselling suicide and the Harmful Digital Communications Act and specifically section 22 which prohibits causing harm by posting a digital communication. The first offence has a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment and the second two years. Dowie is not looking at jail time, in fact on the scale of things I don’t actually think it warrants a conviction given the circumstances, but if a conviction occurs then her seat will be vacated.
And note, I said “might not be an offence”, but it is certainly questionable.
And one last thing. Try reading this:
J-L Ross was certainly having suicidal thoughts.
So, if I might ask you, who is going over the top?
Have a good weekend.
In my opinion, in the end the police are likely to conclude that these were emotionally charged words used in the context of a particular nasty relationship breakdown.
Relationships break down every day, and in the moment all kinds of things are said – worse often than what was said in this case.
My concern is that there is a something of a sanctimonious position being taken in regards to this situation by elements of the media and others. Along with this is a vindictiveness that drives a desire to ‘punish’ one, or both of the politicians concerned, possibly because they are National politicians. How else to explain the focus on the ‘punishment’ that Dowie could receive for uttering these words.
So what I’m keen to happen is for the discussion to shift away from possible ‘crimes’ that may or may not be committed to some compassion being shown for the two parties who are caught up in the situation.
There is still the issue that an MP out of favour was censured and the other party was not – that sort of management is not the sort of judgement that is suitable from people who wish to hold high political office.
Stop making excuses pledgers the issue is her and her party passed a bill to stop this type of behaviour her personal behaviour I don’t care if her and ross were fucking one another that’s a moral issue and not for us to judge its there problem not ours but she has sent this nasty hurtful text and at a time when we have the national party going on about personal responsibility when their own members are carrying on like this.
You’ve spelt out the situation exactly Michelle. Seeing through the fog is a skill we need muchly.
Well put Michelle you got it right.
Absolutely, Michelle. I have a copy of Dowie’s text and it is utterly vile, in addition to telling Ross he deserves to die. I think it amounts to an offence under the HDCA (which Dowie voted for) and, as a result s179 of the Crimes Act 1961 (which provides the heaviest penalties for serious criminal offences). The spin from the Nats seems to be that it’s OK if they commit criminal offences; after all, as everyone knows, the purpose of the criminal law is to keep the lefties and the proles down, not them. Whether or not the Police charge Dowie, every day she remains in Parliament is one more where the Nats are revealed as the two-faced hypocrites that they are. They should tell Dowie to resign (after all, they’d probably win a by-election in Invercargill, notwithstanding the fact that Labour has a better candidate than it’s had for many years).
‘You deserve to die’ isn’t quite ‘go on and kill yourself’ is it. Maybe she’d been areadin’ of her barble and that was the conclusion she drew.
You’re going to find no one cares. No one cares about her or ross.
Well yes that’s the offical party line. And you know a lie told often enough becomes the truth.
Exactly the National voter is only concerned with the strong economy, which was ruined when Labour got in.
But what if it involves MONEY fewsy? Nats care awfully about MONEY.
They still concentrating on finder the leaker?
The tnquiry found it was not JLR even as he was blamed.
Agree with @infused – no-one really cares.
The trashy vulgarity of the Nats is common knowledge and going on about it doesn’t add anything. Move on.
how trumpian of you.
Well we care infused cause this is one of our major political parties and one that might I add thinks its holy than thou. Now are we just going to sweep this under the carpet, no we cant do that, we have to speak up and make sure people like her who think they are above the law don’t get away with this.
you will find no law has been broken. It’s on the edge, but nothing will come of it.
Well the legal system sets precedent even though these are not followed has someone else been charged for this offence and what punishment did they get. If nothing comes of this then we need to revisit this law cause it ain’t worth the paper it is written on. Its no good having a law for us and another law for sarah.
100% agree with you Michelle (5.6)
The National Party members seemed to be totally unconcerned about the alarming contents of Nicky Hager’s book. Loyal regardless.
The National Party members will be totally unconcerned about the hypocrisy exposed re Dowie compared with Ross.
Carry on chaps.
Just so Ianmac. Gnats lack a moral compass on many levels. Play DP to the point where they think it is normal.
Couldn’t careless about the affair but I am concerned that an MP possibly broke the law.
Pretty legal tho’ eh?
I suspect the Police’s pfaffing about is more about weighing up whether they can pass it off as being pretty legal, or whether they’ve already spent too much ‘credibility capital’. We’ll either get a showcase prosecution or they’ll do all they can to try and bury it.
In any event, if a Police ‘investigation’ is underway, the tik tok length of time it runs in a case like this might become more about the Police’s level of competence and bias than anything else in the Joe Public’s mind.
Wadda we do Commish?
No I’m far more interested in how many nat list mps brought their seats and for how much.
Do National Party MPs bring their own seats to Parliament. bwaghorn? The present ones not comfy enough? Hah. Brings on a thought to match –
The Comfy Chair.
One would assume Dowie will step down.
It’s more relationship gossip than anything political.
All forgotten by May.
National still romp home in Invergiggle in 2020.
Not worth Labour getting involved.
Damage will be done by the media.
Hell has no fury like … 🙂
national don’t have any principles rata so they wont care about the affair but this really is a bad look at a time when we are trying to prevent domestic violence and suicides. This nasty text is a form of violence and it should not be acceptable for our politicians to act and behave in such a manner towards one another and others. We should expect more and at the moment the carry on in national is disgusting. As far as I’m concern both of them should fuck of and get another job they are making a mockery of our parliament.
Do you honestly think this is the only sexual relationship that has gone on between MPs, or that it is the only one that has turned sour?
No of course not. Politicians are human and the nature of the job and environment they work in probably makes them even more vulnerable to tripping over their marriage vows.
Whatever actually happened here I really don’t want to know. JLR projects a bad boy aspect many women are sexually attracted to, but quickly find that living with it is intolerable. Dowie now gets to own her choices and their consequences.
This is an eternal human story; one none of us can afford to be overly judgmental about.
My thoughts exactly Redlogix. This is a human story, not a political one.
No, but this is one where one of the parties committed a serious criminal offence (allegedly). That makes all the difference, IMHO.
The Harmful Digital Communications Act is a complete turd, so open ended that it can be used by anyone for anything which makes it an extremely dangerous law politically
How squalid is the National party? Full of wide boy chancers.
Sugar mummy dowie needs to be gone from our parliament, she sent her toy boy ross a harmful message yet she voted for a law to stop this type of harmful nonsense. Lets hope our bias media keep this issue alive for a while more collateral damage soimon must be going grey with despair.
Promoted to National’s spokeswoman for mental health.
So she could issue this policy statement: “Some people have mental health so toxic that they deserve to die. I’ve learnt that from personal experience. I suggest the health dept organise a few focus groups to determine how widespread such learning has become, in order to establish a basis for remedial legislation.”
[Deleted by request – MS]
Was that what Dowie wanted to do to Ross?
Thanks Micky, (spelled correctly this time).
So what did he do to produce that text? Do we know? If not, do we have a right to know? Is ethical conduct essential, or optional, if you are an MP? Is using privacy law as a cover-up strategy morally right? So many questions, so little time…
Human nature suggests public curiosity will drive the question of what he did to deserve that judgment. It is a moral judgment. It was made to him by another MP, but they often call each other liars, so the public accepts moral condemnation as normal behaviour by parliamentarians. Part of the culture.
Can she therefore be punished for condemning him privately? No moral basis to do so, but I agree there may be a legal basis. The law is often an ass.
What is most surprising is that anyone would be surprised that this is the sort of vile spew that comes out of the mouth of a member of the National Party…of course it is, everybody instinctively knows that most National Party members talk this way as a matter of course (well definitely after a couple of drinks, that’s for sure)
Nationals core ideology is one of deep cynicism, selfishness in the direct vein of their spiritual prophet Ayn Rand..
“My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”
Atlas Shrugged 1957, (a shit book)
And remember this folks…Friends don’t let Friends read Ayn Rand.
The saddest part of this whole affair is that it reminds you that so many fellow kiwis that you meet every day will actually get out of bed to vote for these pricks…yuk.
national can do and say what they like because they think they are above others.
@Michelle…’because they think they are above others’
Yes as was spoketh by the great omnipresence that descended in a halo of blueish light and delivered this great message to her disciples in the National caucus…a message that over time has come to define the very reason of their being.
(Inner circle National Party chant) “All hail the absolute heroic being”
Translation= All hail me myself and I
“And remember this folks…Friends don’t let Friends read Ayn Rand.”
That made me laugh!
Adrian – I have Ayn Rand’s books that I promised myself I would read to know more about this shitty person. Do you think I should ‘Destroy after Reading’?
(I’ve done a bit of backgrounding ayn Rand and put it in Open Mike for anyone who is interested in this enigmatic and influential person and her ideas of destruction of civil society. The – ‘Why shouldn’t you have all the toys you want and can get philosophy.’
You would be better off destroying *before* reading.
I tried reading them years ago after Lindsay Perigo – former television interveiwer at the time mentioned Rand, maybe he was on radio by then.
They didn’t appeal to me but some wit will probably claim I didn’t have the capacity to “understand” the concept.
I can say I struggled to get something from the couple I had taken out from the library but that was mainly to fight off the boredom. I have read thousands of books in my life and they were a couple of the few I couldn’t persisit with.
Concise summary on other thread: https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-25-01-2019/#comment-1575684
Thanks for that it was useful because listening to the interview I realise I did “get it” but is was not something that appealed to me. In fact the conclusion though not fully formed then but it was there was that Rand’s own dogmatism was completely at odd with what she claimed. I recall after now that I went on to read about her and though she might have used her core beliefs as complete justification she came across to me as a “bludger”, a “user’ and someone of very little worth.
Possibly that is how we end up with right and left politics and religions etc in that different people’s minds work differently from others and that is something that I think Rand didn’t get that it seems to me is more “natural” than her “conclusions” were.
I’ve read The Fountainhead, and it was just a story, not a philosophy for life. And TBH, there were many instances of fuzzy thinking and logic in them for me.
I read The Fountainhead when I was 20, on the advice of a Young Nat. Doing so made me realise I was not one of them.
I did kind of half heartily in my distant past have a little go at Rand, but as I had just started reading Bertrand Russell and Rousseau at that time, she seemed to me to come across as pretty hollow.
Rand ‘pretty hollow’. Sounds like a Keyshun saying – is it possible that he read Rand and we are luxuriating in the results of this fount of wisedoh!
I have no idea who John Rogers is but he’s on the button.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
– John Rogers
@joe90, Ha, that quote is most definitely a keeper, thanks.
This woman had been in a relationship with JLR.
She deliberately listed all his vulnerable spots in the most hurtful way, finishing with ”you deserve to die.” in August, a text he kept and re-read in October when low.
It was calculated and cruel. Designed to press his buttons. Buttons she knew about, for when JLR re-sent the text and his reply, ”You get your wish”, the panic button was hit, she/someone informed the authorities.
We were led to believe a caring friend let the authorities /police know that they had received a text indicating JLR was not in a good space. So the informing party knew it was ‘marginal’ at best and likely to come under the harmful digital communications law her party had helped pass. Meantime Paula Bennett was riding shot gun talking of 15 or more women complaining about JLR. to muddy the waters.
When you consider the close relationship Paula had with Bill English and family, her behaviour in putting up a smoke screen to protect the Southland mp is clear.
There was no doubt they play dirty, many of the rules written by JLR himself, and ‘biter bit’ comes to mind.
JLR’s Lucy must be a remarkable human being, and possibly most of the reason he has come through an emotional firestorm to realise his children and wife are the most important things. Sarah Dowie needs to consider, she gave no thought to his children, she behaved in a horrible manner using personal knowledge as a weapon.
Neither party comes out of this with their reputations or community standing intact.
Should they be in parliament? I rather think the selection panel and the voters may have a voice, if the police issue a “warning”” for a first offence.
None of us are perfect, but you would hope for better from well paid representatives. What did we learn? Paula Bennett and Simon Bridges are not covered in glory, and keeping a name back can affect others who are suspected.
Our parliamentarians need courses in how to deal with mental health issues.
Further, Sarah Dowie understood this was a crime.
Well apparently he is a complete prick to women, so it was always going to happen.
So this has only just become common knowledge? More likely it was totally and deliberately overlooked while it suited and as for the other MP whose values or self-worth put up with that for two years it hardly shows them to be someone with good enough judgement to be in Parliament.
Yeah, sure Chris T – it is quite commonplace for someone to vote in favour of a law, then knowingly break that law.. Happens all the time. Should be ignored. Nowhere near as serious as someone apologising for being a man (in a limited context) or a minister granting a temporary stay to a Czech with a record because the info he needed was not even in the records provided to him.
You seem over-selective in the offences you are prepared to overlook…
Paula Bennett was riding shot gun talking of 15 or more women complaining about JLR. to muddy the waters?
Was she going around prompting negative comments? “He looked at me funny once,” became another number on the list to give substance and create the impression of a tsunami of complaints? Ross made reference this week to how one complainant was added to the list.
I admit that I do not have a favourable opinion of Bennett or her motives. She might be the spokesperson on drugs but in my opinion she should be their agriculture person. She is a bloody cow. Mind you … Judith …
It might not be an offence to say someone deserves to die, but it is certainly questionable grounds. It is however certainly an offence to actively aid and abet suicide. Section 179 of the Crimes Act says so.
Dowie could be in very big trouble here.
I hope not. If the text quoted elsewhere is accurate it was an ugly vicious text, but I’m terribly reluctant to see speech, even in it’s most regrettable moments, become subject to to a creeping criminalisation.
That comes with a very big cost down the road.
Nicely put RL.
However (and a bit off topic) I think a different standard should apply with children and bullying. Not criminalisation, but some sort of sanction involving wider family.
dennis what a load of waffle she was instrumental in passing a bill to stop this type of behaviour when she is doing it herself. So is it alright for her to do this but not others?
People need to wake up this is not right and we cannot have people like this in parliament they have no integrity or principles.
Well yeah, but it’s not like she’s the first-ever hypocrite in parliament, is it? Will anyone in parliament suggest a prosecution? Another key question. Let’s see how many days pass with no answer…
Parliamentarians have no role in deciding prosecutions.
Yeah, I know that. There’s a grey area around voicing an opinion about the feasibility though. If the law forbids that, I’d like to see the evidence. Most people think representative democracy is designed to permit reps to voice the public interest. Which, in this case, is whether an MP is conforming to a law “she was instrumental in passing”, according to Michelle.
I don’t see why MPs ought not express an opinion on the morality of that and whether it ought to be prosecuted. It’s in the public interest that MPs who break the laws they enact get exposed as hypocrites, don’t you think?
“Parliamentarians have no role in deciding prosecutions.” Tui billboard ad. You can be sure there’s all sorts of contact between the Nats and Police going on (especially over the weekend). Note how the Nats have got Mark Mitchell (ex-cop and “security consultant” in Iraq, as well as client of Stephen Lusk) as point man on this.
Yes dennis your right she is not the first hypocrite in parliament and she won’t be the last but her party and her have been passing laws based on their principles and values and they like to talk a lot about choices and self responsibility but they aren’t walking their own talk.
Good reminder that women can be as vile and abusive as men. Busting the myth of innate superiority.
Yes Brutus Iscariot they can. I know from personal experience. In my case the brutality was covertly carried out, and it took me years to find out who was behind it all. Too late to take action so she got away with it.
But its the exception rather than the rule BI. The majority of harm and abuse is conducted by men towards women.
Rubbish. In all offending types, motivations, etc, etc, men and women are about equal in regard to how bad they treat each other. If you look at death tolls from the full list of behavours men are being slaughtered compared to women especially at relationship breakdown. A recent examination of suicides shows for young males especially but nearly always male, is 1 in 5 suicides while mental health for older men is also the main identified issue for females, is 3 in 10 of all suicides.
It’s only because society only hears one side of the argument that you came to the conclusion about men being worse than women. It’s not like a single government entity exists to help society understand what’s happening with DV etc that presents the male perspective. How can you draw that conclusion that it’s mostly men?
In relationship breakdown like this Ross affair it’s the males that are being killed. Yet punishment, and power and control, shaming is being systematically imposed on males. The females can behave as abhorrently as the like, including making suicide inducing comments.
It needs to stop, just as bad male behavours need to stop.
In relationship breakdown like this Ross affair it’s the males that are being killed.
In Australia there are 8 suicides every day. 6 of them will be men, and 3 -4 of them will dealing with the aftermath of a relationship breakdown.
i know you have an issue with facts
i know you are some bitter bloke with issues around women
i know this because you are sprouting the same bullshit every time you get a chance,
however facts don’t support your hurt little fee fees
Let’s quote exactly the Police report you linked to:
This is a complex picture, but one that leaves out two important details; the fraction of victims of ‘family-linked’ homicides and suicide. Also the absolute numbers in NZ is rather low, so the statistics can be quite noisy from year to year.
Extrapolating backwards from Australian data (which simply draws on a bigger database) we know that in any given year there will be around 250 homicides, of which 40% or 100 will be family related. Of these around 80 victims will be female and 20 male.
Overall there are more male victims, but within the context of family related murders there are more female victims. This is entirely not surprising.
At the same time there will be around 3000 suicides, of which roughly 2,250 will be male and between 1,000 and and 1,500 will have occurred in the aftermath of a relationship breakup. A lot depends on the exact definitions you use, which is why I’m only giving probable ranges for the data.
If you think I’m being hypothetical, the reason why I’m not working today is that the site has closed. Yesterday one of our hauler drivers committed suicide in exactly these circumstances.
your hurt little fee fees
Shaming. The primary reason why men respond with violence; either toward others, or more often onto themselves.
You might want to be more aware of this.
no not shaming at all. but it is not the first time that this poster has said blatant false hood.
one could argue that this case is one of intimite partners, as they had an affair and what comes with it.
but let me put it this way,
men are afraid that women laugh about them
women are afraid that men kill them.
you might want to be more aware of this.
Can you quote a study that involves the facts. Not just facts selectively looking at one end of the issue. Or is not from bias resultant data. IE what’s actually happening overall.
When women go to the police but men don’t for DV you create biased data.
When police arrest the male when both parties are violent you get biased data.
When the police arbitrarily arrest males in DV but less than a 1/3 of of identified violent females you get bias in the data.
When female psycological violence is completely ignored you get bias in the data.
When women get all the support services but men get no services you get bias in the data.
When women have many government funded media, research, and reps for DV but males get nothing you get bias in the data.
When male sex crimes are addressed but females sex crimes are protected by government you get bias in the data.
When the police release DV reports but only allow women groups to participate in those reports you get bias in the data.
When females are taught in schools they are victims and the males are indoctrinated that they are the offenders you get bias in the data.
When publicly funded services ask women if the are safe but never ask men you get bias in the data.
When courts normalise defathering you get bias in the data.
When sentence are more severe for men you get bias in the data.
When injury cause is recorded for women but not men you get bias in the data.
When studies only ask women but never ask men you get bias in the data.
Why do you hate men, that represent men or say there opinion has no facts.
100% of people who lie about contraception are women. Fact.
100% of people who lie about paternity are women. Fact.
They exceed all the male harm on there own.
Both are major causes of male DV responses and profoundly exceeds female deaths by male DV. You ignored that in your one eyed response.
When women man up and take responsibility for the own DV let me know.
Do you hate Jacinda because she only supports women. A open feminist.
Do you hate Ang Jury because she only represents women.
Do you hate JAG because she only represents women.
Do you think any of these women are bitter about men?
No doubt in my mind.
I find myself not wanting to contradict what either of you are saying. I’ve read much of what you and Sabine have written over time; it’s clear you both have reasons to feel betrayed at the hands of the opposite sex. Good reasons that I cannot gainsay nor disrespect.
I agree that the feminist argument has occupied centre stage in the public debate for many decades, and yes the male perspective has been consistently discounted and shouted down. That has not helped at all.
But as long as we play this as a zero sum game, with each gender battling it out to be heard, scoring points toward some imaginary ‘victory’, all of us will continue to lose.
I’ve consistently made the point it’s about both parties being at the table being represented. Equality leads to better outcomes, but when false equality by one side forces silence on the other nothing will ever get fixed.
I don’t like that mine is bigger than yours stuff like you, but it’s hard to avoid it
Fair enough. None of this is easy ….
The Gillete post the other day was extremely toxic. I may have posted something but it was incredibly negative towards women. There is no way you can say women, let alone feminists have centre stage, when that is the level of discourse.
It’s really a matter of perspective. I don’t particularly see the feminist argument taking centre stage – mostly I see that any feminist idea that makes it into the general media gets spewed on by hating men.
You just have to look at how Cunliffe was treated when he showed empathy towards the women who had been treated badly by the men they knew. He got dumped on well and truely – loyalty to one’s sex appears to trump empathy to the victims of violence –
The down grading of women happens all the time – for example in the DomPost quiz today – another question about a women that relates to who she is married to rather than for her own accomplishments. I would say about two thirds of the questions about women in that quiz are about who they are married to rather than for themselves. Surely they can find questions about women that don’t relate them to their husbands.
It does get incredibly tiresome.
Yes, although it’s more accurate to say that each sex has it’s own particular pathology. The way men can be vile and abusive tends to be more physical in nature, it usually leaves a chain of physical evidence that can be seen and acted on. This is why the question of male aggression is so visible and attracts so much attention; it’s the obvious target.
By contrast female aggression tends to be more psychological, or if there is a physical component, it’s secondary to the intent to shame and humiliate. Usually this kind of attack leaves no obvious marks, the harm is emotional and by it’s nature hidden. But this does not mean it should also remain unexamined, that women’s behaviour should escape scrutiny and challenge.
The interesting thing here is how the digital age is subtlety altering this equation; how Dowie’s text has been captured in aspic, now made public in a way that I’m sure comes as a terrible chagrin to her.
Our better natures would all agree with DJW … it needs to stop. Yet aggression is something hardwired into all of us; we cannot excise it from within us, we cannot suppress it, and we cannot pretend it does not exist. This leaves just one path, and it’s not the easy one, we must each confront it and learn of it’s true nature.
Only then can we control it.
The type of aggression I experienced was carried out in different ways. For instance I didn’t suffer physical harm, but over time a few of my pet animals did.
This is probably a good moment to note how much I’ve appreciated your consistent support on this point. Thank you.
My pleasure Redlogix.
Because I was on the receiving end of both male and female abuse, I do have an inkling how each gender tend to behave.
In the case of one male it was up-front bullying by a superior carried out within the confines of the workplace . At least it started out as such but did eventually go beyond… but that’s another story.
The female was a different kettle of fish. Her activity was clandestine and frightening because at the time I didn’t know who was responsible. I went to the police five times over specific incidents but because I couldn’t identify the perpetrator they took no action. It turned out she was operating with a mate (a male) so there was actually two them. He fled NZ years ago in interesting circumstances, but I don’t have all the facts at my finger-tips so have to keep quiet.
The female was also making false allegations behind my back which was causing me a lot of angst. You might get the picture… there was far more to the picture than meets the eye. 🙂
Some of the worst manipuation and emotional harm I’ve seen have come from men. I’ve seen women do it too but it’s just a load of twaddle that men don’t do emotional harm.
For example – in the dark net there is a group using and making tools to replace the faces of female porns stars with women they want to harrass and demean. (The tech is pretty advanced so done well, it’s not easy to spot it’s counterfeit). This must be one of the top levels of emotional harm and manipulation (that is not physical).
And at the same time women are equally capable of physical violence; it’s just generally not as effective as when men do it, but the intent is there all the same.
I wasn’t making a black and white argument that it was 100% one way for each gender. That would be idiotic.
Named and shamed by the media, good job.
It’s up to the voters now.
The media have named her, Cinny, but have they shamed her? I haven’t read any judgements from them, just reportage of fact.
Too true Robert.
Thinking of which, I wonder when ‘media watch’ is back on RNZ… would be interesting to hear their summary of media reporting on said subject.
Am just pleased her name is now officially out there.
A shame, that lack of shaming? She probably is ashamed. By the allegation, only, since the Herald offers no proof. Soper says she allegedly sent it. He wrote allegedly in three separate places, to make sure readers got it. He knew there was a real danger some may jump to the conclusion that it actually happened.
So it’s rather like Schrodinger’s legendary cat, allegedly dead or alive… 😎
‘Allegedly’ is to please lawyers, that’s all.
Will Stuffed approach her partner for comment?
National one of the parties that claim to be for Family Values yet only one of the two where supposedly censured for this behavior.
They turned a blind eye to it until they could use it against him as a weapon because of perceived party disloyalty.
Another Tui Moment
National is a party of “Family Values”, “Yeah Right”
The police investigation won’t go anywhere.
If JLR behaved like a shit towards Dowie, she may be feted for her honesty.
JLR recently declared that Dowie had told him to kill himself. She said no such thing. Why doesn’t he explain what motivated Dowie’s text?
It happened Ross. Why do you have to know all the gory details? Why should he explain everything to us beyond what the police need to know. Breathe through your nose, and stop slathering through your mouth.
We have no evidence of other communications from her to him. And nor will we, unless it hits court.
The text message sent to JLR was terrible. Dowie needs to make a public statement and take responsibility for her actions.
“Before you interpret this as your usual narc self – don’t. Interpret it as me – you are a f***ing ugly MF pig. Shave that f***ing tuft of hair off your f***ing front of skull head and own your baldness – you sweaty, fat, toe inturned mutant. You deserve to die and leave your children in peace and your wife out of torment – f***er!”
All smiles and glam on the outside……
What does MF stand for? Oops, got it.
Ha ha ha…..Massey Ferguson. Love it !
Dowie is a mother and he had sex with her. Polite version.
Has Dowie children?
JLR has just put out a press release saying he will never wear….roaming..sandals..ever..again.
We don’t know if her text was terrible or not as there is no context.
I’ve read it. It is utterly vile.
I’ve read it. It is utterly vile.
Maybe you have a thin skin. People say all manner of things when they’re angry. Again, one can only speculate what JLR did to Dowie to motivate her response.
Maybe you have a greater-than-usual interest in Sarah’s business, Ross 🙂
You seem determined to deflect accountability from her.
‘I was angry your honour’ isn’t mitch of a defence is it rossy.
I have just posted some context in relation to the timing of the text at 31.2.1 below.
With regard to your comment that “Again, one can only speculate what JLR did to Dowie to motivate her response.”
We do not know whether this text was a “response” or whether is was initiated as a stand alone text. The wording does not seem to indicate it is a response per se.
Nor do we know whether Dowie and Ross were in touch at all over the three of so months since their breakup in May.
But as I point out in 31.2.1, Dowie and others had been partying in Wellington just hours before the text was sent (allegedly from her phone according to the NZ Police). Alcohol, partying and phones can be a bad combination …
She sounds a bit out of sorts blady.
@ Fireblade (20) … Maybe hubby found out about the affair and told her to go pack her bags. Or JLR moved on to another woman.
Either way, her text sounds very much like a woman scorned, bitter and vengeful. Hell hath no fury etc etc …. Nasty!
Men who struggle with the dick / zip control scenario might do well to remember that mary eh.
So we are supposed to believe his meltdown was all caused by one pretty minor text 2 months earlier?
Do they still make those Tui ads?
Straw that broke the camels back
2 months is a severe delayed back break
Try two years when this somehow was all completely OK with all parties, those intimately involved or undoubtedly aware.
Under that law, Chris T, any text that contributes is illegal.
Try a different squirm – that wasn’t good enough.
It seems to be the case that Ross has an underlining mental health issue which males raised in the circumstances he was, have higher rates for. Risks for both sexes greatly increase if the person has mental health issues. A rough estimate from my understanding of the subjects is a 300% increase of risk of suicide.
Relationship breakdown, increases risks greatly for younger males. In JLRs case the coordinated attack on him resulted in his marriage breakdown.
Public shaming increases risks for males. Dowie was a key player in that public shaming.
Loss of employment due to illness is a big risk for older males. Dowie was a key player, involved in the public attack attempting to cause him to loose his job.
So the text in isolation may look minor but the whole event makes the text look part of a sustained act of Domestic Violence.
The text marks the beginning of that sustained attack, hence how it remained significant to the victim, and resulted in the suicidle behavours.
Well said DJ.
There is a tremendous amount of revisionism in there
What “coordinated attack on him”?
He was the one doing the coordinated attacking remember, which his dribbled out “recordings” and hour long press conference slagging off everyone in National and accusing them of being corrupt.
I seem to recall Bridge’s was being criticised on here for NOT wanting to talk about it or even answer questions, let alone attacking him.
Unless you mean Bridges stupid “embarrassing” comment and the one article quoting all the women he was abusive to, which was written by the media, not National.
Yes the bloke had mental issues, and the text from over 2 months ago was not particularly nice, but to point to it as some sort of catalyst to his breakdown is ridiculous
We understand that the acute symptoms of many forms of trauma can appear decades later; so why is it so hard to get your head around a ‘few months’?
From one fairly minor text.
Sorry, but can’t see it, but beg to differ and all that.
Four people and reporter majicaly got together and launched a media attack on him. That’s a group of people working together. They all released the story together timed as part of a character assassination. That fits into the term coordinated. Paula is accused by Ross as being part of the coordination. A key player in the events that took place behind the scenes resulting in Ross recording secretly, Ross being sidelined and the year long preparations for attack by the reporter, then launched into the media. Insinuation with word manipulation that he was a sex offender.
Evil, coordinated at the highest level of government.
Plus the misandry and gynocentrism. All those involved are women, and all of them protected from public naming, or examination of there statements and morality of there own acts.
For women and a reporter magically together, and year long preparations?
Which is it? You can’t have both. They are the opposite of each other.
Victims of abuse are perfectly entitled to anonymity, or are you victim blaming?
What abuse? They had sex. So by your logic, misandry, if two people have sex the female is the victim. Victim of what? There was never any charges.
The anonamous accusation. Protected by gynocentrism, where society persecuted the male and protects the female for the same thing.
Dowie is no more, and no less moral in her behavour than Ross. She was married with kids and had an extramarital affair. Ross got called everything from a mysoginist dog, and worse. Dowie got called a victim.
So she is not one of the 4 women accusing him of abuse then?
She’s had the sense to keep her gob shut. Who knows what other concessions she’s made.
Without subtracting one iota from the appalling crimes men do inflict on women, there is a wider and even larger scale issue that has remained largely invisible.
I’ve put some rough numbers on it above at 12:28pm.
“There was no immediate show of support for Invercargill MP Sarah Dowie as her electorate woke to the revelation her phone was the focus of a police investigation into a text message sent to Jami-Lee Ross.
Anne McCracken, who is regarded as one of Dowie’s strongest organisers in the electorate, said: “There will be no comment today.””
Awaiting orders from Simon?
Is the nat fixer of choice flying back down south?
Or too busy with her new drug role?
They are using M.itchell as fixer
The mind boggles. So far the only thing I have noticed him fixing is that he no longer puts kicks himself in his mouth with both feet when he speaks.
Apparently Paula Bennett has been the behind the scenes ‘fixer’ on this whole sad saga since the breakup occurred last May.
Mitchell has become a ‘fixer’ and in the news etc lately – whether as Bridges’ replacement right hand man post Joyce and JLR, or in his own rights with dreams of becoming the No 1 in the Opposition remains to be seen. In relation to the police investigation into the text to JLR, he is presumably speaking in his role as Justice spokesperson for the Nats.
Perhaps he can be called .. itchy and scratchy? Gabby might have thought that up but I have been him/her!
From all accounts Police haven’t spoken to Dowie. They perhaps have more pressing things to attend to. 🙂
Yes the donation investigation is taking a long time.
Not as long as Labour’s youth camp
Took an awful long time for a prominent New Zealander to come to trial, too.
like the 7s in hamilton ross
What? You mean they have more problems to iron out?
Here is the link to the ODT article that your quotes come from:
An interesting read for the number of Dowies’s 2017 Electorate Committee members running for cover, with (the ever present these days) Mark Mitchell speaking on behalf of National, presumably as their spokesperson on Justice.
An earlier ODT article today basically repeats David Fisher’s Herald article,
This is why you don’t dip your pen in the company ink (or whatever the equivalent is for females) so If you really want to do that kind of sordid and frightful carry on then you’d be best served to book an escort but on the other hand we all love a political scandal especially when it includes illicit hanky panky (its ok to admit it, we’re all friends here)
Absolutely hilarious …
I’m not completely heartless though as I do feel bad for the respective wife, husband and kids in all this
Wondering if JLR is listening this this right now (and if he isn’t then he should be)
I’d be embarrassed complaining to the cops about some end of relationship texts. Good lord what next.
Let our cops arrest some burglars or break up a domestic and stop wasting police time.
I can’t wait to see the full transcripts of the txts.
Like, honey are you taking drugs your member is so soft these days, you were once once Once a Studd until you shagged the other tart.
How could you say that I remember nothing, but if you keep this up I will plead mentally ill.
Oh go ……. Top and join Gareth’s Party
I will tell lies more lies and more lies.
Ross obviously thought that there is more to come when you flat with the future Queen of The National Party,
Some men never get it – sex is sex.
Sex and marriage is love babies etc.
Why is it when women who like extramarital sex, with young sods like Ross have the reversal sex card turned on them with the mental issue card.
After all a shag is a shag, it’s not as if she is not a pretty lady, think if you had kept your trap shut you could have had the honey and your wife.
Lets hope you loose the lot Jamie Ross.
Wrong site tfacot. This is The Standard not Kiwiblog.
We will have to keep us on task if the past is anything to go by. While NZ politics is lacking in substance and value needing to be looked at, someone waves a bra or jockshorts in the air and all the hounds are off after the scent of Miss Demeanour (or to be PC Mr, Ms etc).
I should imagine that every other female National Mp is feeling mightily relieved .
There was always going to be a slight suspicion that they were the one screwing JLR
I myself thought it was Maggie Barry 🙂
FWIH, other female Nat MPs remain anxious that their own peccadilloes will see the light of day.
Not the screwed one oob.
I thought she was the one doing the leaking. Since it continued after JLR was expelled from caucus then… who is it?
Not every other Nat MP… Remember, Dowie was only one of several. Couple of sweaty brows still in the house come question time…
You got out of bed on the wrong side then.
Gawd… the ChiNational party in full swing… complete with the latest melodramas…
May I suggest a nice hot cup of tea , some ginger-nuts and listening to something more uplifting like this…
Tchaikovsky – Waltz of the Flowers – YouTube
We will obviously have to gather a list of soothing music to call on when needed ti cool our heated brows and flamewars down.
Many thanks for posting this WK. Beautiful. Great fan of the classics, particularly the works of Mr T and some of his contemporaries.
The root meaning of the word responsibility is a person’s response ability to authority. What should the general publics response ability be to these two people of authority and their party, logically speaking, after this?
Recent Stuff stories reveal more detail about the events that led JLR to hospital:
186 comments on sexy tittle-tattle with stess-laden unhappy result – meanwhile the world is turning… Can we leave the ex-lovers alone and watch with concern and good wishes from the sidelines. Then onto important matters to us all requiring thought. Or are you all dandelion heads.
(This is not commercial use – educational!).
You’re right, there are far more relevant matters like a dead celeb from Singapore: https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-26-01-2019/#comment-1576057
Dowie’s misconduct involves much more than sending one harmful text message in the early hours of a Sunday morning. Why else have so many local Nats bailed from their local organisation over the past 12 months?
I am not from that part of the country but it seems that there has been a lot of talk etc in the electorate and the Southland Times has not been totally silent on the issue of Dowie as their local MP – for example the November 2018 editorial linked to in the actual post above.
She also appears to be involved n the relationship between Gary Tong, Southland District Mayor and, among others, Chinese multi-millionaire Zhang Yikun – the wealthy and well-connected businessman linked by Jami-Lee Ross to a $100,000 donation to Simon Bridges and the National Party.
This was discussed in some detail in the comments to mickysavage’s post ten days ago on 15 Jan entitled “Chinese Herald changed Herald articles to be more China friendly”, including in my detailed comment at 4.1.
A little interesting detail re the text sent to Jami-Lee Ross, allegedly from Dowie’s phone, in the early hours of the morning (1.19am) of Saturday, 11 August 2018 is that this was just hours after the annual “Southland Party” promotional event held in the Banquet Hall at Parliament in Wellington in the evening of Friday, 10 August hosted by Sarah Dowie and others, including Mayor Gary Tong.
A good time was had by all, including Dowie and Tong if the photos of the two posted by Dowie on her Facebook page are anything to go by, and reposted to the “Southland Party” Facebook page here:
Alcohol, parties, late nights and phones etc are sometimes not a good combination …
The Otago Daily Times had some more to say in today’s edition (I don’t know how to link here). Its political editor reckons Dowie is finished and will stand down at the next election, if she doesn’t resign earlier (which I think she should). However, they also report Audrey Young’s view (NZ Herald political reporter) that Dowie can ride out the scandal and continue her political career. People I’ve talked to down here (no more than 12 and fewer than half are Nat voters) think Dowie is “a piece of shit” (actual comment from middle-aged, middle-class, Nat-voter) and say they won’t vote for the Party again while she’s a candidate. I’ve no doubt the Nats are doing their own soundings but I haven’t heard a word of support for Dowie from anyone.
When you put her alongside Todd Barclay, the south has not been well served by their local party organisers. They could be feeling used, as well as disgusted.
Interesting, That was the impressions I have had from small references in the ODT and the Southland Times over the last few months.
Here is the link to the ODT article you are probably referring to:
[To put in a link, just copy the URL – often the headline for the article (and the https: link in the address bar of your toolbars) – and then paste it into your comment.]
Quite a few new related articles today with discussion and links in today’s Open Mike.
!86 comments means that other people obviously want to discuss the subject which is not just “sexy tittle-tattle with stess-laden unhappy result” as you put it, but has some very wide political elements and repercussions. This is after all a political blog.
As you seem to think you can tell other people that they are not welcome here on TS (eg John Selway) , that they are hogging comments in posts, etc (eg Gosman), perhaps you should practice what you preach.
Since the TS has been back up and running just three hours ago, as well as a number of comments on other posts, you have made six comments here on this post, none of which really address the issues and include a music videos which doesn’t do so either.
If you don’t want to discuss this topic, fine. Just don’t comment and leave others who want to discuss it to do so without you telling people not to do so and cluttering the threads with inconsequential comments and videos.
I think that my comment informing on a factual base of 186 comments on this post is not something to be criticised by you. And I am remembering, though you may not, when we had a great post author in rob who sometimes got only 13 for his well-thought out and important subjects. Quite a contrast, and one thinkers here should be aware of.
It is true that this is a political blog. And our politicians behaviour is a fair subject of discussion, as to their ability to do a good job on behalf of the NZ people. But are we more aroused by personalities than actual policy? I stand by my comments that sexual misbehaviour draws excessive attention. It certainly seems with what has been published that Sarah Dowie seems to be making a real blue during her time in office. I think now that everyone would consider her to be unsatisfactory in her job, after scrutinising the facts.
My opinion is that we should be thinking about other issues now. You have your opinion about what I should do vv. I am interested in seeing that the number of negative thinking, left hating RWs is kept to a minimum, as at present they seem to be swamping the blog. I like to read the comments of people who try to add useful stuff to the discourse myself, and run down others who come just to harass, or who don’t want to help NZs make effective change. I would like to see this blog stay an important and well thought of one not full of mewling time-wasters who don’t care about where NZ is going and what NZ is doing to damage opportunities for a decent life for a majority of young people.
So I am sorry if you are annoyed at me; I’m equally as interested in this blog as you are, perhaps more. I don’t accept school rules here, but ones that allow for robust discussion with an effort to remain civil, and to look for honesty and the good in people’s intentions and communications. And to stop now and then for some rueful laughter at the way things go haywire so often. Does that help you to understand where I am coming from?
I am convinced that an occasional music video can either defuse, interest, satirise, or make more interesting for others, discussions that seem to bed down, so to speak, into a sort of minute autopsy of a matter. In the end we are in a most difficult task – to transcend our nasty human behaviours and cope with climate change. Taking a minute for light relief at our tendencies before looking again at the problem I think helps keeps us balanced.
HDPA says blame the outing of Dowie on Bennett and the other Nats, and then on JLR: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12196285
Nat stenographer faithfully delivers the party line on JLR: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/110157726/stacey-kirk-jamilee-ross-has-the-same-agenda-different-tactics