Local Bodies: Woman Experiences Sexual Attack, PM Gets First Apology.

42 comments on “Local Bodies: Woman Experiences Sexual Attack, PM Gets First Apology. ”

• Comments are now closed

1. feijoa 1

   3 July 2014 at 4:01 pm

   I saw David Shearer interviewed by Bill Ralston last night ( the Paul Henry show), and I thought he did a great job of the interview, he was looking relaxed and confident.
   So much better than when he was leader funnily enough – maybe he was being overmanaged in those days?
   • Chooky 1.1

     3 July 2014 at 7:21 pm

     Jan Logie of the Greens has done very well on this issue when i have heard her on radionz…she has gone to the young woman concerned, who wants justice and has reported her outrage on how her case for justice has been handled by the National Government..ie helped let the sexual assaulter flee the country

     Shearer is also doing a good job on this . He really wasnt cut out to be Leader of the Labour Party with so little experience ….but he is a good Minister .

     Labour and the Greens are doing very well putting the heat on National over this outrage to a young New Zealand woman….showing where Nacts priorites are…certainly not with the rights of and justice for young people and in particular young New Zealand women!

     …lets hope young New Zealanders are taking note …and resolving NOT to vote for Key and his Party of old National men like McCully …who care not one jot for the rights of the young!
2. Jack 2

   3 July 2014 at 4:17 pm

   Shearer is actually a nice human being, Key treated him like a piece of S*** and it was not in Shearers nature to do likewise, hopefully NZ are waking up to what we have let ourselves into.
3. Tracey 3

   3 July 2014 at 4:24 pm

   karol wrote a good piece on this last night

   http://thestandard.org.nz/why-did-you-not-ask-apologies-culture/
4. Jrobin 4

   3 July 2014 at 4:32 pm

   Is this a back room deal gone wrong by the micro managing McCully. What was to be gained by sending him home from the New Zealand perspective? My thoughts go to the victim who is the innocent party here and to the family of the diplomat. The apology definitely went to the wrong person.
5. Liam Hehir 5

   3 July 2014 at 6:34 pm

   Could well be and badly managed.

   But isn’t it customary to have a trial before we ascertain guilt?
   • McFlock 5.1

     3 July 2014 at 7:18 pm

     indeed it is.
     Unless the government enables the alleged attacker to leave the country.
     In which case ministers and the PM deny all responsibility. Again.
     • Liam Hehir 5.1.1

       3 July 2014 at 7:21 pm

       OK so no trial = guilt.

       At least David Shearer is being a little more circumspect.
       • McFlock 5.1.1.1

         3 July 2014 at 7:34 pm

         No.
         No trial = country’s guilt.

         Telling the complainant she might have to travel internationally for anything to be done when that was the decision by her own government = the country’s guilt.

         Apologising to the PM and not the complainant = the country’s guilt.

         You might want to cry for the reputation of the alleged attacker, but that’s the reaction Harris and Saville relied on for so long.

         Which is the point of the post.
         • Liam Hehir 5.1.1.1.1

           3 July 2014 at 7:41 pm

           What a strange comment. The matter was badly handled but that doesn’t mean we should be referring to the man as an attacker rather than an an alleged attacker.

           Yes, guilty people protest their innocence. Hardly a startling revelation.

           The thing is, so do the not-guilty, like William Roache, Nigel Evans, Jim Davidson and Michael La Vell.
           • McFlock 5.1.1.1.1.1

             3 July 2014 at 7:50 pm

             Hey, the legal system should regard an alleged attacker as innocent until proven guilty. And not guilty verdicts mean legally innocent. No argument there.

             Doesn’t mean people can’t have an opinion.

             Your four comments here showing nothing but concern for the reputation of the alleged attacker are noble, and not at all related to the post. /sarc
             • Liam Hehir …

               3 July 2014 at 8:01 pm

               That’s not true. I’ve also agreed that the procedure was botched and generally concurred with the post. However, I don’t think it’s out of order to note that we are dealing with allegations at the moment. Fortunately it looks like we will now get a trial.

               By the way, showing concern for the innocent isn’t necessarily an act of solidarity with a particular alleged offender. It’s preserves it for everyone: me, you, Darren Hughes.
               • McFlock …

                 3 July 2014 at 8:19 pm

                 Okay, two of your previous four comments expressed nothing but concern for the alleged attacker’s reputation, the other two also spent half the comment expressing nothing but concern for the attacker’s reputation.

                 And in reference to a particular case, it does show solidarity with a particular alleged offender.

                 You imply there were allegations against Hughes. You should stop reading slater’s jizz.
                 • Liam Hehir …

                   3 July 2014 at 8:27 pm

                   What are you on about? A complaint was laid with the Police. Charges were not laid in the event because the evidence wasn’t sufficient – as is often the case in complaints of a sexual nature.

                   Hughes resigned anyway, lamenting his trial by media and the fact that he wasn’t accorded a presumption of innocence in the public arena.

                   [In the present case] It’s only fair to qualify the allegations as allegations at this stage, pending the trial which is now (thankfully) likely to happen.
                   • McFlock …

                     3 July 2014 at 9:05 pm

                     Nobody even knows what the complaint was.
                   • Murray Olsen …

                     3 July 2014 at 9:51 pm

                     I agree with you, Liam. The guy is not guilty until convicted in a court of law. The matter in question happened in Aotearoa, and he should be before our courts. That NAct don’t seem to care about this and were prepared to let the victim travel to Malaysia unsupported puts our regime in a very bad light. Along with the recent appointment of the ex-military sexual assault (rape really) guy to an important position, our regime is showing that it thinks women are expendable toys for the boys, with the exception of Gusher Collins and Paula Benefat, whom they consider goddesses.

                     One more reason why this government has to go.
6. Foreign waka 6

   3 July 2014 at 6:40 pm

   It should not really be surprising that the women concerned did not get a mention, let alone an apology from any of the ministers commenting and parading in front of the journalists. The reporters are equally not interested in the same way as any of the third world countries is treating its women, children and elderly.
7. Richard Christie 7

   3 July 2014 at 7:15 pm

   The alleged perpetrator has not yet stood trial.

   Until he has, in the absence of witnesses, it is an alleged attack and an alleged attempted rape.
   The complainant is exactly that, a complainant, not a victim. Or, if you prefer, alleged victim.

   Now, before the howls begin, none of what I have written undermines the seriousness of the charge or seriousness of the complaint. Nor does it pass judgement either way on the veracity of the complainant.

   I merely raise a long established and cherished principle of our legal system. We go not pass judgement or presume guilt until the system has finished its due process. That, and that language matters, the language of the post fails in this respect.

   The complaint has been handled in an appalling manner. That does not usurp the principle of presumption of innocence .
   • Liam Hehir 7.1

     3 July 2014 at 7:22 pm

     Agreed.
   • You_Fool 7.2

     4 July 2014 at 12:41 pm

     One would assume (and I may be wrong) that there is evidence of the attack, so there isn’t an alleged assault, nor an alleged victim, but there is an alleged perpetrator.
8. lurgee 8

   3 July 2014 at 7:16 pm

   Instructive that this post has gained a handful of comments and the ‘sister’ thread focusing on attacking McCully has gained far, far more. Says something sad about people round bout here.
   • felix 8.1

     3 July 2014 at 7:45 pm

     Or maybe it says something about the linear nature of the way we experience time…
     • lurgee 8.1.1

       3 July 2014 at 8:08 pm

       Don’t be silly. One went up this morning, this one other mid afternoon. Do you really expect it is going to get a sudden surge of posts? Especially since the ‘third’ thread on this topic (really the first one), posted yesterday, hasn’t even reached 50 replies yet? Combine this one with that one, and it still amounts to less than the one focused on McCully.

       It’s almost as if people here were far,far more excited about the prospect of a National minister in trouble ….
       • felix 8.1.1.1

         3 July 2014 at 8:20 pm

         On a political blog? Say it isn’t so.
       • mickysavage 8.1.1.2

         3 July 2014 at 8:50 pm

         Posting here is remarkably random. Authors get an idea, draft a post and put it up. There is normally no consultation about which post goes up or when. It is just a matter of when it is loaded normally. There is no game plan, there is no review by PR professionals, there is no plan to enhance the status of any party. The only person with control is lprent and he is remarkably tolerant of us as long as we do not misbehave too much.

         Morning posts get more attention than afternoon posts. My posts tend to be more politically focussed and I aim to press the buttons of current political issues. Karol’s are more thoughtful and more subtle and deeper.

         It is interesting which posts attract the most attention. Generally any left right stoush where the merits are argued on ideological lines get the most comments.

         There are a diversity of views amongst the authors. There is no Borg like collective mind set. Just a bunch of random people wanting to make the world a better place in their own distinct way.
       • Delia 8.1.1.3

         6 July 2014 at 4:13 pm

         I think you would have to agree that the readers here took more interest in the alleged victim, than the PM and the National party.
   • Chooky 8.2

     3 July 2014 at 7:49 pm

     @ lurgee…stop trying to fudge the issue….some people may have only just looked at the issue and this post is the most accessible to them…and McCully as Minister in charge must be called to account ( especially as it was he who gutted Foreign Affairs, which takes an important role in giving advice on such sensitive issues and ensuring proper procedures)

     @ Liam Hehi and Richard Christie …and of course the guy is innocent until proved guilty!

     … but that is not the point…the point is that the old men of the National Party enabled the accused to skiddattle the country before facing serious charges of attempted rape and burglary!

     …why?!

     1)…..do they care so little about justice for a young New Zealand women that they simply regarded it as unimportant ?

     2.) …or was there a more sinister political trade off here ? ( inwhich case once more her rights for a fair trial have been violated by political expediency )
     • Richard Christie 8.2.1

       3 July 2014 at 8:05 pm

       Chooky, Liam and I do not miss your points at all, however I believe you miss ours.
       The post uses inappropriate terminology. The wording presumes guilt. This matters, it exposes poor understanding or deliberate disregard of fundamental judicial principles on the behalf of the author. It also undermines the author’s credibility, no matter what other points they are attempting to make..
       • Chooky 8.2.1.1

         3 July 2014 at 8:20 pm

         well all things considered the “inappropriate terminology” is a minor offence and understandable

         …especially as the accused skidattled the country instead of facing up to the accusation (.it is not as if he was in danger of being hung in New Zealand ….and in fact justice meted out in New Zealand would probably be far more humane than facing up to the charges in his own country)

         …so all things considered I would think the post is probably pretty accurate
       • NZ Femme 8.2.1.2

         3 July 2014 at 8:37 pm

         Since, presumably, the author of this post – like the general public – doesn’t have the power of the judiciary to lock him up, judicial principles like due process and terminology doesn’t need to be adhered to in order to form a personal opinion.

         I do not need to see a guilty verdict in a court of law to believe a woman has been the victim of a sexual assault or attempted assault. If that was a requirement for the multitude of women who have been raped and require help for resulting harm, the majority of Rape Crisis Centres wouldn’t exist.
         • Richard Christie 8.2.1.2.1

           3 July 2014 at 9:02 pm

           I do not need to see a guilty verdict in a court of law to believe a woman has been the victim of a sexual assault or attempted assault.

           You and every clansman that ever decorated trees with strange fruit.
           • McFlock 8.2.1.2.1.1

             3 July 2014 at 9:08 pm

             Yes, because a blog post is totes the same as a lynching.
           • mickysavage 8.2.1.2.1.2

             3 July 2014 at 9:12 pm

             It is all a matter of determining the likelihood of a particular event. If you are relying on proof beyond reasonable doubt then you are talking about an event that has (say) a 90%+ probability that it occurred. This is appropriate if you are going to lock someone up. You should have a high degree of confidence. But if you are talking about someone believing something happened then the threshold may and often will be lower. More likely than not will mean a 51% probability that something occurred.

             Life is full of possibilities and probabilities …
       • Tom Jackson 8.2.1.3

         4 July 2014 at 12:08 am

         This is a blog, not a court. If the Malaysian sex criminal wants to sue The Standard, then let him. Ordinary people are entitled to their own views about his guilt, whether or not he’s had a trial (a la the endless David Bain arguments).

         In fact, someone who is videoed committing a murder is still not yet legally a murderer until conviction, yet it would absurd to complain if people thought him a murderer.

         Personally, the fact that this degenerate scarpered is pretty damning, as well as the fact that the Malaysian press stories I’ve seen aren’t exactly sceptical about the charges against him. Nor do I particularly care what some gouty old judge has to say about it. I’ve had the displeasure of serving on a jury and it didn’t improve my opinion of the legal system.
   • karol 8.3

     3 July 2014 at 8:27 pm

     The number of comments does not necessarily indicate the level of interest. Sometimes posts with a small amount of comments get read by a load of people.

     One thing that often increases the number of comments under a post is when a load of right wingers pile in and contest the post. These then get a lot of replies from left leaning people who argue against them.

     There are a fair number of comments from known right wingers under the McCully post.
9. felix 9

   3 July 2014 at 7:58 pm

   Wasn’t so long ago “Gangster of Love” Maurice got caught trying to pressure the cops to go easy on a wife-abuser.

   And now McCully and Key seem to have been caught trying to sweep an attempted rape under the carpet.

   Is anyone really surprised that the govt that slashed the funding for Women’s Refuge doesn’t give a shit about violence against women?
   • Chooky 9.1

     3 July 2014 at 8:04 pm

     +100…they dont give a shit …and this is why it must be drawn to the public’s attention ….so people can vote accordingly!

     it would be interesting to have a list of all the funding they have slashed for women/men and youth in regards to counselling for sexual abuse /assault /refuges … eg services , counselling, ACC etc
     • felix 9.1.1

       3 July 2014 at 8:28 pm

       Yes Chooky. This govt commits acts of violence itself on a regular basis.
   • karol 9.2

     4 July 2014 at 9:17 am

     And a Christchurch Rape Crisis call out service closing because of funding cuts. It doesn’t get Ministry funding because it is insolvent – and without the Ministry funding it’s insolvent.

     RNZ report on it here.
   • Tracey 9.3

     4 July 2014 at 9:36 am

     and permitted a diplomat accused of domestic violence to leave the country. I hope they strongly opposed or actually ordered the person out of nz instead of letting them leave quietly
10. Sable 10

    4 July 2014 at 9:45 am

    Yet another example of this disgusting “sell out” government putting the needs of foreign entities ahead of the needs of its own people.
11. J Mex 11

    4 July 2014 at 10:50 am

    As Richard Christie wrote previously, posters and commentors need to be careful here:

    “[It is alleged that he] attempted to rape her.”

    Suggest one of the admins change the original post. We want this person to stand trial in New Zealand, and we want a fair trial, not a trail by media, or by politics.

    Everyone can discuss the governments, and ministries, handling of the alleged offender, but until trial, one must be careful with discussion and phrasing of the alleged offence.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS