Mike Sabin is in trouble

Written By: - Date published: 7:52 am, December 22nd, 2014 - 215 comments
Categories: john key, national, uncategorized - Tags:

The Sunday Star Times broke the news yesterday that Northland MP Mike Sabin is in trouble paradoxically with the police.  The allegation was that he was facing an assault investigation.

Details were scarce but there was this cryptic comment by someone associated with the complainant:

I can’t say much mate, sorry.  I just don’t need the grief at the moment.”

The Herald this morning has more details.  The article contains the following:

Prime Minister John Key yesterday refused to comment, instead directing media queries to police. However, police also refused to confirm either receiving a complaint or any investigation into allegations against the former detective and anti-methamphetamine campaigner.

Nevertheless, the Herald understands senior Northland National Party figures have already been discussing potential candidates to replace him in the event of a byelection.

Party president Peter Goodfellow told the Herald National’s hierarchy was unaware of any allegations, historical or recent, against Mr Sabin before this year’s general election. He refused to comment further.

A couple of interesting aspects arise from this.  Firstly Key’s silence is interesting.  He is willing to pontificate on the most banal of subjects but in this case he is clamming up.  It will be interesting to find out when the party first found out about this allegation.

Secondly the talk of a by election suggests that the maximum penalty for the offence being investigated may be two years or more imprisonment, thereby triggering a vacancy in his seat under section 55 of the Electoral Act 1993.  There are a variety of different types of assaults under the Crimes Act 1961 and the Summary Offences Act 1981.  The maximum penalty for a Summary Offences Act assault is six months jail.  Under the Crimes Act 1961 a straight forward assault has a maximum penalty of one year’s jail.  It is only the more severe offences which include male assaults female or assault of a child, or assault or injuring or wounding with intent that would qualify as a vacancy creating offence.  The apparent time taken with the investigation suggests that it is not of a minor nature.

Whatever the nature of the allegation until it is resolved Sabin should be stood down as chair of Parliament’s Law and Order select committee.

Cameron Slater thinks that Sabin is gone and that a by election is inevitable (donotlink link).  Time will tell …

215 comments on “Mike Sabin is in trouble ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Paul 1
    22 December 2014 at 8:00 am

    Only Slater has any detail on this.
    Wonder who told him?

    • travellerev 1.1
      22 December 2014 at 8:06 am

      Telling? Texting more like! Wonder what hat he was wearing?

    • Pete George 1.2
      22 December 2014 at 8:08 am

      “Only Slater has any detail on this.”

      No. SST had details yesterday (link in then post). And as quoted in the post.

      Nevertheless, the Herald understands senior Northland National Party figures have already been discussing potential candidates to replace him in the event of a byelection.

      • Paul 1.2.1
        22 December 2014 at 8:10 am

        Slater’s comment.
        The most interesting bit.

        ‘‘The story itself, which National have sat on for weeks, is almost too horrible for words, and there is little doubt that there will be a by-election in Northland.’

          • Paul 1.2.1.1.1
            22 December 2014 at 8:35 am

            Slater’s key words.
            ‘Almost too horrible for words’

            And from the Herald.
            ‘The three-year political career of National Northland MP Mike Sabin is in the balance after a report that he is under investigation by police over an assault complaint.’

            Assault.
            Too horrible for words.

            • batweka 1.2.1.1.1.1
              22 December 2014 at 8:41 am

              “Now that suggests some horrific crime, does it not?”

              No, it suggests Slater has an agenda for spinning this way.

              I’m not sure why anyone would give any credence to anything Slater says. Not only is anything written on his sight highly suspect, but giving credence to it lends credence to Slater himself.

              As for Sabin, looks to be like there is nowhere near enough information to have a converstion about what he has done. Better to wait.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                22 December 2014 at 8:55 am

                Of course there’s enough information. The National Party has let it be known that they are looking at new candidate selection. They have offered no words in support.

                That’s before we get to Slater’s poison pen.

                Sure, he’s spinning a line. Who for and to what purpose? I suspect my first paragraph hints at the answers to those questions.

                • batweka …
                  22 December 2014 at 8:58 am

                  Reread my comment. I said there’s not enough information to discuss what Sabin has done. Micky’s covered the generalities. You’ve summed up the probably background and spin angles. Other than that?

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    22 December 2014 at 9:29 am

                    Well, then we can think of other MPs who’ve crossed various lines, and received party support along with a bit of a telling-off, or a demotion, and know that whatever Sabin is alleged to have done must be considerably worse.

                    I’m also picking that Sabin hasn’t been accused of assaulting a protestor, for example, or any other member of the innate “not real people” list that wingnuts carry around with them.

                    I expect it wasn’t a bit of random fisticuffs either.

              • Halcyon …
                24 December 2014 at 6:18 pm

                Now that is sound advice. But I don’t expect it to be followed. It si more fun to conjecture than to have sound evidence.

            • tracey 1.2.1.1.1.2
              22 December 2014 at 9:28 am

              given slater has never found anything too horrible for words…

              mind you he does lack self reflection.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                22 December 2014 at 9:30 am

                I suppose he will find the words if Sabin doesn’t resign.

                • tracey …
                  22 December 2014 at 9:34 am

                  oh yes and is showing the tipline is still open

                  • David H …
                    22 December 2014 at 1:24 pm

                    is that the Tip line? Or the Shit line??? Because it seems that all Tips, just turn to shit for someone, when they come from Slater.

                    • tracey …
                      22 December 2014 at 1:25 pm

                      It “feels” like Collins to me… you reckon just cos she got a column at SST she is a changed woman, quietly sitting at the back? na-ah… she has SO much time to plot pay back double…

      • batweka 1.2.2
        22 December 2014 at 8:11 am

        🙄

    • tracey 1.3
      22 December 2014 at 9:32 am

      you are correct or at least he is the only one saying he knows the charge and incident. SST in its article didnt.

      of course slater is a serial liar and on a good day, an embellisher.

      if he is telling the truth at leadst some of his sources are still feeding him. the”tipline” paying double for christmas?

  2. Murray Simmonds 2
    22 December 2014 at 8:11 am

    Reminds me a bit of Maxwell Smart and the “cone of silence” – for those with longer memories than the PM seems ever to possess on matters that don’t suit him.

  3. travellerev 3
    22 December 2014 at 8:12 am

    Cameron Slater is calling the National party hierarchy ethically challenged? WTF?

    • Paul 3.1
      22 December 2014 at 8:14 am

      Unbelievable.
      Still him questioning Key’s handling of the issue is indicative.
      The tension there has not gone.

    • mickysavage 3.2
      22 December 2014 at 8:15 am

      Yep. Although he is better placed than any of us in recognising those who are ethically challenged …

      • Paul 3.2.1
        22 December 2014 at 8:18 am

        Would the departure of Sabin allow for the return of Collins?

        • travellerev 3.2.1.1
          22 December 2014 at 8:26 am

          Oh, Maybe that is why Cameron Slater is “addressing” National Party Ethics! To get his mate Collins back in!

          Hence the closing line: It’s politics though, no hard feelings.

          • Paul 3.2.1.1.1
            22 December 2014 at 8:29 am

            He is certainly challenging Key and his running of issues.
            Key may have apologised to Slater, but the blogger isn’t letting go.
            What does Slater have on the PM?

        • Lanthanide 3.2.1.2
          22 December 2014 at 8:38 am

          Return of Collins to what?

          Collins is already a bank-bencher, and she won her electorate. She’s ranked 6th on the party list, Mike Sabin is ranked 44. He’s not a cabinet member.

          Why would his departure have any impact or relevance to Collins?

      • travellerev 3.2.2
        22 December 2014 at 8:25 am

        Yep, he would know. Wonder what he is going to drop next?

      • tracey 3.2.3
        22 December 2014 at 9:36 am

        except you have to have an ethical line in the sand to suggest ethics are challenged… where is his line?

        bets on key knowing before election??

        • NZJester 3.2.3.1
          22 December 2014 at 11:07 am

          Key is the only one who knows the location of his mythical ethical line in the sand as it is an invisible one drawn by him and it moves around depending on his needs or mood at the time. But then I think his ethical line in the sand is actually more of a set of circles around him and you must say so far away from him depending on what sort of trouble you are in to allow him to still look good. You need to actually have some ethics to be able to have a real ethical line in the sand.

          Slater is always allowed to come into the ring closest to Key as long as it is from the back so he is mostly hidden from the public.

    • NZJester 3.3
      22 December 2014 at 11:17 am

      If Slater is calling them Ethically Challenged then his mates must be thinking of trying to roll them all and have a set of their own people they want to bring in to replace them. They have rolled other National Party officials and candidates using Slater in the past.
      This looks like Slater’s backers might be going to take another opportunity to grab even more power within the National Party.

  4. North 4
    22 December 2014 at 8:30 am

    Few years back yakking to a senior Northland police officer (decent man tho’ a worshipper at the temple of TheGodKey) – his one dismissive word re Mike Sabin – “Tosser !”

    I wonder……..will there be cause to add “Bovver” ? Nah, churlish – specially if according to TheGodKey there is none.

    • Tiger Mountain 4.1
      22 December 2014 at 9:05 am

      Sabin’s bully boy persona in public and private spheres is well known in the North. It was always going to come out at some stage. Some tories I know voted Willow Jean Prime for Northland seat they are so disparaging of Sabin.

  5. Lanthanide 5
    22 December 2014 at 8:36 am

    “Secondly the talk of a by election suggests that the maximum penalty for the offence being investigated may be two years or more imprisonment, thereby triggering a vacancy in his seat under section 55 of the Electoral Act 1993.”

    This is actually a very strange angle to take. You are suggesting that National would be perfectly willing to let Mike Sabin stay in his seat, if he were convicted of a crime that had a year 1 imprisonment sentence.

    Even a step back from that: you’re suggesting that National is perfectly willing to let Mike Sabin stay in his seat, even if a large distracting police investigation starts up, there are allegations of assault (which have obviously been kept secret to some extent).

    Look at the various miscreants from the Act party – they all eventually lost their seats; it was only Banks who forced it to go to an actual trial (and he still resigned prior to the sitting date).

    • mickysavage 5.1
      22 December 2014 at 8:48 am

      National does not have an option to remove Sabin from his seat. It is up to him whether he stays or not even if convicted unless the Electoral Act provisions kick in and he is deemed to have vacated his seat. Trevor Mallard stayed on as an MP despite his conviction under the Summary Offences Act for fighting – http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/182897/Mallard-pleads-guilty-to-fighting-charge

      • Ovid 5.1.1
        22 December 2014 at 10:20 am

        A by-election would be embarrassing for the Nats. The majorities are so large for them in Northland that they could stand Voldemort with a blue ribbon and he’d romp home.

        What it does feed into is the growing sense of third term arrogance.

      • Tom Jackson 5.1.2
        22 December 2014 at 10:23 am

        National wouldn’t have much trouble “persuading” him to resign.

        Far more interesting is the SST article where there is a conspicuous mention of Sabin’s time combating meth use. It’s repeated and looks incongruous. Perhaps this is worse than it seems.

        It’s not like a bit of biffo is automatically a sacking offence. One party leader is notorious for drinking and looking for fights, is he not?

        • Paul 5.1.2.1
          22 December 2014 at 10:27 am

          The references to P you were referring to.

          ‘Mr Sabin, 46, has been National’s MP for Northland since 2011 when he gave up his anti-methamphetamine consultancy business Methcon which he formed following his departure from the police in 2006.’

          ‘Sabin gained national prominence as a campaigner against methamphetamine or “P”.
          In 2006, after a decade with the police, he took leave of absence from the service to start a company that advised on the “P” problem. He was often interviewed by the media about “P”.’

          Which leader?

          • Tom Jackson 5.1.2.1.1
            22 December 2014 at 10:30 am

            I used the wrong pronoun. It’s Metiria Turei.

            😉

            • Paul 5.1.2.1.1.1
              22 December 2014 at 10:32 am

              You wrote
              ‘It’s not like a bit of biffo is automatically a sacking offence. One party leader is notorious for drinking and looking for fights, is he not?’
              Then said ‘It’s Metiria Turei.’

              He?

              • Tom Jackson …
                22 December 2014 at 10:36 am

                Ask yourself how many of the leaders are likely to have got into a drunken scuffle. If you still can’t work it out, search back. Only one has, as far as I know.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  22 December 2014 at 12:14 pm

                  Bob Jones?

                  Although, I don’t think he has a reputation for getting drunk.

                  • Tom Jackson …
                    22 December 2014 at 1:47 pm

                    Jones has never been an MP.

                    Which currently sitting MP is on record as having not only engaged in a spot of parliamentary biffo himself, but of having publicly taken a “boys will be boys” attitude towards the well-known Mallard-Henare fracas?

      • Lanthanide 5.1.3
        22 December 2014 at 12:31 pm

        Yeah, just like National didn’t have any influence into the record number of MPs that retired at the 2014 election. They all did it fully voluntarily of their own accord.

    • Draco T Bastard 5.2
      22 December 2014 at 12:07 pm

      You are suggesting that National would be perfectly willing to let Mike Sabin stay in his seat, if he were convicted of a crime that had a year 1 imprisonment sentence.

      Brownlee is still in his seat despite being guilty of a charge that carries a possible jail sentence.

      • Lanthanide 5.2.1
        22 December 2014 at 12:36 pm

        Which charge has Brownlee been found guilty of? Link please?

        But you too have missed my point.

        It is public pressure and the perception of troughing that results in MPs standing down. It depends on the crime they’re alleged to have committed. Aaron Gilmour and Claudette Hauiti both left parliament.

        Now of course, National has no official mechanism by which they can remove a sitting MP. But there are plenty of unofficial ones, especially for anyone who has concerns about their future career and standing in the community after politics.

        • Draco T Bastard 5.2.1.1
          22 December 2014 at 3:36 pm

          Which charge has Brownlee been found guilty of? Link please?

          http://thestandard.org.nz/why-wasnt-brownlee-sacked/

          But you too have missed my point.

          Actually, you seem to be the one missing the point. If Brownlee or Sabin had been Labour MPs National would have been shouting long and loud about them needing to resign and that Labour’s leader was protecting them (with the MSM helping them).

          They don’t do so when their own MPs are the ones that have been caught being scumbags. Instead, they try to hide the facts and hope that they go away instead.

          It is public pressure and the perception of troughing that results in MPs standing down.

          Pressure usually brought about by National and their helpers in the MSM.

          But there are plenty of unofficial ones, especially for anyone who has concerns about their future career and standing in the community after politics.

          Actually, there aren’t even unofficial means to remove a sitting electoral MP. Pressure can be brought to remove a list MP but the two ways to remove an electoral MP is at the next General Election and if they have a conviction that can get more than two years imprisonment.

          • Lanthanide 5.2.1.1.1
            22 December 2014 at 5:34 pm

            Brownlee breached a civil aviation rule and was fined. He did not break a law, so was therefore not “found guilty” of anything.

            Actually, you seem to be the one missing the point.

            Actually you’re bringing up an entirely different point. Micky was specifically musing that the reason National may be considering a by-election is because Sabin may have done something that incurs a maximum prison penalty of at least 2 years:

            “Secondly the talk of a by election suggests that the maximum penalty for the offence being investigated may be two years or more imprisonment, thereby triggering a vacancy in his seat under section 55 of the Electoral Act 1993. ”

            My comment was strictly discussing this aspect of Micky’s post and suggesting that it is a strange angle to take.

            Pressure usually brought about by National and their helpers in the MSM.

            So you agree with me, then, that it is public pressure that makes someone leave office, moreso than what, if anything, they are guilty of.

            Actually, there aren’t even unofficial means to remove a sitting electoral MP. Pressure can be brought to remove a list MP but the two ways to remove an electoral MP is at the next General Election and if they have a conviction that can get more than two years imprisonment.

            You’re wrong, in that any pressure that can be brought on a list MP can equally come to bear on an electorate MP. Brendan Horan was a list MP and there was nothing NZ First could do to make him leave parliament.

            MPs of both flavours leave parliament if:
            1. They lose an election
            2. They voluntarily resign
            3. They’re convicted of a crime
            4. Medical reasons, of which I don’t know the specific details but in practice would boil down to #2 first anyway

            • tracey 5.2.1.1.1.1
              22 December 2014 at 5:49 pm

              was brownlie convicted for jostling that chap down the stairs?

              • McFlock …
                22 December 2014 at 5:55 pm

                The crime has to be punishable by up to two years – as MS put in the post, there are two lesser assault charges before the more serious assault with intent to injure or wounding with intent.

                So even if he’d been found guilty and convicted, he probably wouldn’t have hit the two year threshhold

              • Lanthanide …
                22 December 2014 at 5:55 pm

                I could quite imagine so, but that’s why I asked for a link from Draco, so I knew exactly what it was he was talking about.

            • Draco T Bastard 5.2.1.1.1.2
              22 December 2014 at 6:03 pm

              Brownlee breached a civil aviation rule and was fined.

              Civil Aviation Act 1990

              Security area and security enhanced area offences

              security area is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months…

              He broke the law and was found guilty of it which is why he got to pay the $2000 fine. He got an Infringement notice instead of a conviction though (Which doesn’t seem to be supported by the law).

              My comment was strictly discussing this aspect of Micky’s post and suggesting that it is a strange angle to take.

              You wrote:

              You are suggesting that National would be perfectly willing to let Mike Sabin stay in his seat, if he were convicted of a crime that had a year 1 imprisonment sentence.

              To which my answer was that Brownlee had broken the law and was still an MP so obviously National are willing to let people who break the law to stay in their seat. Of course, the law also recognises that people do make mistakes and shouldn’t be overly penalised for minor breaches.

              MPs of both flavours leave parliament if:

              We were discussing removing them, not them leaving. Different kettle of fish.

              • Lanthanide …
                22 December 2014 at 6:17 pm

                To which my answer was that Brownlee had broken the law and was still an MP so obviously National are willing to let people who break the law to stay in their seat.

                Still not getting it. Micky was solely focussed on the fact of whether it was a ‘serious offence’ or not, the implication being that National would *only* be considering a by-election if it was a ‘serious offence’. Both Aaron Gilmour and Claudette Hauiti, neither of whom broke laws, being removed from Parliament by the National party. So clearly Micky’s premise, that National would only be considering a by-election if it were a ‘serious offense’, is wrong.

                Bringing up Gerry Brownlee is actually completely irrelevant to the point I am making. It is illustrative that National sometimes do let people who have done bad things stay in Parliament, but is irrelevant to the fact that National may be concerned about the Sabin situation even if he hadn’t committed a ‘serious offence’. In fact we can see that with Richard Worth, as he apparently didn’t break any laws but was also forced out of Parliament.

                We were discussing removing them, not them leaving. Different kettle of fish.

                Er, exactly the same kettle of fish. The mechanisms for ‘removing’ electorate MPs is identical to removing list MPs. You implied that they are somehow treated differently when you said “Pressure can be brought to remove a list MP but the two ways to remove an electoral MP”, but there is in fact no distinction at all. So your implication is wrong.

                • mickysavage …
                  22 December 2014 at 8:33 pm

                  National will dump a misbehaving MP if the political risk justifies it at the drop of a hat. The only problem here is that Haiti and Gilmour were list MPs and totally reliant on the party. Sabin is an electorate MP in a safe seat. He can hang around as long as he likes.

                  • Lanthanide …
                    23 December 2014 at 7:58 am

                    Once again, you’re focussing far too much on the ‘official rules’ of the situation.

                    The situation is that National decide they want to cut Sabin loose – not because he’s done something that warrants a 2+ year prison term (whether he’s convicted or not) – but simply because National decide that what he has done is ethically / morally wrong and repugnant to the electorate (see also: Richard Worth). They have no official means by which they can secure a by-election, but they can expel him from the party and run his name through the muck as much as they want.

                    Then, in the 2017 election, he would have to stand as an independent, while National picked a new candidate to back, all the while denigrating Sabin at every opportunity.

                    So, given that trajectory:
                    1. Would Sabin get re-elected as an independent in 2017?
                    2. When presented with this scenario, would Sabin agree to resign from Parliament, causing a by-election?

                    My picks are 1. No and 2. Yes.

                    None of this requires a criminal offence punishable by 2+ years in prison; it simply requires the National hierarchy to decide that Sabin is damaged goods and to move him on. The threshold to reach that decision is a bit higher for an electorate MP compared to a list MP, but for someone who has been invisible to the public at large like Sabin has been, not much higher. Suggesting that electorate MPs (especially low-profile backbenchers) are untouchable is frankly naive.

                    Who is the greater asset to National: Sabin or Pansy Wong? Pansy “resigned” after mis-use of a travel perk, not even breaking the law.

                    Politics is as much, or more, about public perception, as it is about anything else. Given the last election result its pretty easy to see that the Labour party don’t “get” this idea. National, obviously, do (see also: Double Dipton, Key, crushed Collins, etc).

                    • mickysavage …
                      23 December 2014 at 8:19 am

                      I am not saying that he is facing the possibility of a charge that would if proven mean that he was out of Parliament. But the language that has been used suggests to me this is the more likely scenario. Time will tell.

  6. North 6
    22 December 2014 at 9:11 am

    Lanth’ – MickySavage is 100% correct as to the law. In any event whom knows what tomorrow’s definition of “Higher Standards” might be according to the TheGodKey ? And his paid and unpaid disciples in the MSM – “Snort snort – Beltway Beltway” sort of thing. Right now I can hear Ralston’s portentous mouthings to that effect. In six years we truly have fallen so incredibly low, whom would know ?

    The guiding commandment of the twisted theism underpinning Key – “If you need to do it and you can get away with it – do it ! Which is carte blanche, akshilly. So I repeat – whom would know ?

    • Paul 6.1
      22 December 2014 at 9:35 am

      Ralston was corrupted at some stage.
      Like Brian Edwards, he lived too long in Herne Bay amongst the 1%.

      • North 6.1.1
        22 December 2014 at 10:06 am

        Chez Ralston Herne Bay was always a modest residence, relatively speaking. Lifted fortunes precipitated a move to ‘name-street’ Freemans Bay majestic perambulation distance from the heart of Cafe Society Ponsonby. The fence of which dwelling leading up to Election 2014 bore large, officially authorised, ‘Vote National Key/Kaye’ hoarding.

        Hang on – how come in the several contributions made to public pre-election debate did Erudite-Objective-Billy-Boy-Oracle-Commentator not declare his ‘interest’ in election outcome ? And that of (an)other(s) with very close connection to Erudite-Objective-Billy-Boy-Oracle-Commentator.

    • Lanthanide 6.2
      22 December 2014 at 12:38 pm

      North, did I say MickySavage was wrong in the law? No, I didn’t, because I know he is correct in the law.

      What I said is that it’s a very odd angle to take – that the only way by which a by-election would occur or be considered by National party officials is if he’s alleged to have committed a crime punishable of more than 2 years in jail.

      Tell me, what crimes did Aaron Gilmour or Claudette Hauiti commit? Surely they must have committed something if they both left Parliament…?

  7. ghostwhowalksnz 7
    22 December 2014 at 9:23 am

    Well I guess we arent going to get any ‘breathless expose’ on this from TV3s Brook Sabin ?

    • Paul 7.1
      22 December 2014 at 9:31 am

      Described by Pam Corkery as a sock puppet of Slater’s

    • Tiger Mountain 7.2
      22 December 2014 at 9:38 am

      no need to visit the sins…etc. but Brook was donkey deep in the Whale Oil OIA release “gotcha” shenanigans.

      • Anne 7.2.1
        22 December 2014 at 10:08 am

        no need to visit the sins…etc.

        On the face of it, Brook Sabin doesn’t strike me as ‘a chip off the old block’. I’m sure he got to where he has on his own merit so should he not be left out of it?

        However, must comment on Slater’s comment re- the lack of ethics at the top level of the National Party. Pot/kettle could not be more appropriate!

      • ghostwhowalksnz 7.2.2
        22 December 2014 at 10:30 am

        perhaps he will want to ‘jump’ and run in the bye election ?

    • batweka 7.3
      22 December 2014 at 10:45 am

      “Well I guess we arent going to get any ‘breathless expose’ on this from TV3s Brook Sabin ?”

      I would hope not, because there is an obvious conflict of interest and reporting on Sabin by his son would be unethical.

      • ghostwhowalksnz 7.3.1
        22 December 2014 at 1:22 pm

        You mean ‘conflict of interest’ as in son of MP is specialised political reporter ?

        Who would have ever thought that there would ever be a problem here !

        The family connection helped him get an award before

        “Congratulations
        to our reporter Brook Sabin who has been given a Qantas nomination for
        best current affairs reporting for this story about his brother’s
        inspirational recovery from a rugby injury that very nearly took his
        life.” facebook 3 News

        Who would have thought that reporting on a family member was a problem ?

        • batweka 7.3.1.1
          22 December 2014 at 1:32 pm

          Those two things don’t strike me as being the same.

          In one, you have a family member about to go up on serious criminal charges. How can that not be a conflict of interest?

          In the other, you have a family member with a disability/recovery realted human interest story, so it makes sense to have someone who knows him well cover the story (I’m guessing, I don’t know anything about the story other than what you just said).

          Conflict of interest isn’t just the fact that there is a relationship, it’s about the context, the different roles involved, the seriousness etc.

          • tracey 7.3.1.1.1
            22 December 2014 at 1:36 pm

            OR his father didn’t tell him to protect him from exactly what he is being accused of now?

            • batweka 7.3.1.1.1.1
              22 December 2014 at 1:45 pm

              I think there is a conflict of interest irrespective of anything said between father and son. The serious nature of the situation and the closeness of the relationship is enough to have Sabin jnr nowhere near the story.

              • ghostwhowalksnz …
                22 December 2014 at 5:58 pm

                Keep backtracking.

                So your “ethics” argument before now depends on what hat you are wearing at the time.

                I can see a human interest story here:

                My Secret Shame !. How my sense of entitlement and being a jumped up piece of *hit led to my downfall. As Told to Brook Sabin

                • batweka …
                  22 December 2014 at 6:25 pm

                  How am I backtracking?

                  I’m not sure what point you are trying to make? That all family relationships are a conflict of interest in all journalisitic situations therefore tv3 is indelibly corrupt? Is that what you mean?

                  “So your “ethics” argument before now depends on what hat you are wearing at the time.”

                  Not in this situation. In fact quite the opposite. I’m suggesting that it’s inappropriate for Sabin to cover a story where his father is facing criminal charges no matter what hat he has on. It’s just too difficult for humans to remain objective in such situations, and there is also the public interest issue of needing to be seen to be objective.

                  I don’t see the the same kind of public interest issue if John Campbell wanted to film his sister’s interesting native garden*, so long as the relationships are declared. (there is however an issue if JC did this as a way of furthering his sisters career or financial interests eg the garden was being entered in a competition where the public were voting).

                  *I made up JC’s sister and her garden. Myself I think it would be better to have a complete separation of news journalism from human interest stories, but that’s just me and it’s not how modern journalism functions, even the good stuff.

                  Like I said, I didn’t see the brother’s story, so I have no idea if there were issues, but on the face of what you said, I can’t really see the problem.

                  • RedLogix …
                    22 December 2014 at 6:31 pm

                    +1 Nicely argued.

                    Conflict of interest is always an interesting topic. Most people in public life know what it is when they see it – but actually defining it in a strict and complete manner is not easy.

                  • ghostwhowalksnz …
                    23 December 2014 at 9:39 am

                    So you thought you would get on your high horse and issue pronouncements ‘ex cathedra’

                    Instead you found yourself on a donkey farting in the wind.

                    Ethics be dammed , its a story in that dog eat dog world. And Im the the one proved right

        • tracey 7.3.1.2
          22 December 2014 at 1:36 pm

          For all you or I know he has passed the story to his editor and for someone else to cover. TV3’s editor determines what stories are covered, not a junior reporter like Brook Sabin.

          • batweka 7.3.1.2.1
            22 December 2014 at 1:43 pm

            Or he didn’t have anything to do with it, and someone else in TV3 is handling the whole thing.

  8. North 8
    22 December 2014 at 9:31 am

    Forgot to add this Lanth’ – “……..when for its inherent PR dangers you ‘need to’ avoid a by-election “. All clear now Lanth’ ?

  9. NZJester 9
    22 December 2014 at 9:47 am

    So there is a serious charge against a National MP and the government is hiding it from the public as long as possible. No surprises there!
    If it had been someone from another party they would have made sure the information got on the front page of all the news sites A.S.A.P.

    Meanwhile in the dirty tricks and spin department of the National party they will now be working overtime to try and work out how to hold onto the seat or failing that gift it to one of their puppet parties.

  10. trendy lefty 10
    22 December 2014 at 10:04 am

    Um, is he not innocent until proven guilty?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1
      22 December 2014 at 10:15 am

      Yes, hence the words “investigated”, and “allegation”.

      • ghostwhowalksnz 10.1.1
        22 December 2014 at 1:30 pm

        Thank god Paddy Gower will be able to sort out the niceties of the story behind this.

    • Paul 10.2
      22 December 2014 at 10:21 am

      Of course.
      However the Nationa
      Party are bracing for the worst.

      ‘Nevertheless, the Herald understands senior Northland National Party figures have already been discussing potential candidates to replace him in the event of a by-election.’

      And they are covering their backsides by mentioning the election.

      ‘National Party president Peter Goodfellow said party hierarchy were unaware of any allegations, either historical or more recent, against Mr Sabin, 46, ahead of this year’s election.’

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503450&objectid=11377825

    • North 10.3
      22 December 2014 at 11:11 am

      Indeed Trendy Lefty – just like the various victims of the National Party’s Dirty Politics were always ‘innocent’ as opposed to ‘guilty’ – for God’s Sake they weren’t even being investigated for offending against the criminal law.

      You really think that immediate circumstances (viz. Sabin being the subject of police investigation following allegation of assault) seen against the back story of the fraudulent cynicism of TheGodKey’s years-old boasts of “Higher Standards”, that notwithstanding these circumstances conjecture about a range of political outcomes…….’in the event that……’ is out of order ?

      I do not refer to Sabin personally but there is a sickening pathology in sections of the National Party. Deferential politeness about that is shit. New Zealand has been damaged and there is no remorse indeed there is smirking, clucking pride.

      The fact that one of its MPs under investigation has been neither charged nor convicted of a thing is extraneous in the bigger picture of rot and power lust. As at now Sabin is a peoples’ representative who has not identified the rot and the power lust.

      • Draco T Bastard 10.3.1
        22 December 2014 at 1:51 pm

        I do not refer to Sabin personally but there is a sickening pathology in sections of the National Party. Deferential politeness about that is shit.

        QFT

        We need to start calling spades spades again. We seem to have lost the knack over the last thirty years of worshiping the rich as they destroy our society.

    • tracey 10.4
      22 December 2014 at 11:11 am

      yes. as was field.

  11. KJS0ne 11
    22 December 2014 at 10:16 am

    Slater: “ethics is important in politics”
    Oh the irony.

  12. Marksman33 12
    22 December 2014 at 10:52 am

    4 weeks ago, a good mate of mine rang to ask me what I new about Mike Sabin, I gave him a quick run down, you know, ex cop started Methcon went big nationwide, traded in old missus for younger misses, 2 sons one a reporter one very badly hurt in rugby game. Falling out with biz partner in methcon, tapped on shoulder when Carter was getting set to retire. My mate then proceeded to ask me if new missus had any daughters, I wasn’t sure then but now I believe so. I should mention my mate has lots of mates in the Auckland media and has given me the heads up on several other occasions. Take from that what you will. Merry Christmas one and all.

    [RL: This is not welcome. I’ll leave it alone because the thread under it has expressed considerable dislike for it already. But no more.]

    • Paul 12.1
      22 December 2014 at 11:06 am

      Sounds like people knew stuff a while back and were digging.

    • Tracey 12.2
      22 December 2014 at 11:24 am

      am uneasy about throwing about such innuendo.

      key and sabin himself could cut the rumours by stating what he is charged with

      i have doubts that key would have stayed quiet if the charges had a sexual element to them. not so much cos he abhors that behaviour but cos the public would.

      this is slater at his worst. if he knows exactly what the charge and situation surrounding it is he should have published it… instead of innuendo and rumour.

      • Tiger Mountain 12.2.1
        22 December 2014 at 12:14 pm

        There are various skeletons in the Sabin closet, domestic, community and policing.
        First hand from me and my family; via school (Mike Sabin was BOT chair of Taipa Area School at a time when his son was head boy), Community–charging very poor communities $1000 min for MethCon seminars on P, various reports of an anti Māori streak in his policing methods, he used the BOT to gather intel on parents, and I won’t even go near the family matters for obvious reasons. But some of it will likely come out.

        The Nats had a positively new age aspirant by comparison in christian farmer Mark Tan, but they couldn’t deviate from the swede head rural Nat template.

        I hope Labour’s Willow Jean Prime puts a good heave into any by-election.

        • tracey 12.2.1.1
          22 December 2014 at 1:09 pm

          I am VERY uncomfortable with the turn the thread has taken toward accusing Mr Sabin behind the hand of sexual impropriety. Post your proof or don’t go there.

          • The Murphey 12.2.1.1.1
            22 December 2014 at 4:09 pm

            [RL: Deleted. To be on the safe side.]

            • Tracey 12.2.1.1.1.1
              22 December 2014 at 4:41 pm

              I dont know what you are referring to? [RL: Deleted]

            • Tom Jackson 12.2.1.1.1.2
              22 December 2014 at 4:46 pm

              That’s still the subject of name suppression, is it not? You might want to edit.

              • Tracey …
                22 December 2014 at 4:57 pm

                I am in favour of name suppression when;

                1. the victim seeks it
                2. it is sought for protection on the grounds of medical impact on someone close to victim or in some circumstances close to the perpetrator

                • Tom Jackson …
                  22 December 2014 at 5:00 pm

                  I agree, but that’s not the law in NZ.

                  • Tracey …
                    22 December 2014 at 5:14 pm

                    can you cite the full law?

                    maybe it will be considered in the law commission work collins canned, cunliffe suggested and adams has restarted?

                    • tracey …
                      22 December 2014 at 6:21 pm

                      i was replying to the murphey

                      in any event here they are

                      “.. What factors are relevant in deciding whether to grant name suppression?

                      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 200(2)

                      The court may make an order for name suppression only if it is satisfied that publishing the defendant’s name would be likely to:

                      cause extreme hardship to the defendant or people connected with the defendant (for example, the defendant’s family)cast suspicion on another person that may cause them undue hardship cause undue hardship to a victim create a real risk of prejudicing a fair trial endanger any person’s safety lead to the identification of another person who has name suppression prejudice the maintenance of the law or the security or defence of New Zealand. …”

                    • Tom Jackson …
                      22 December 2014 at 6:27 pm

                      Now that RL has deleted the infringing comments.

                      The relevant part of the law here is that if permanent name suppression is granted, then you cannot refer to that person in connection with the issue for which name suppression was granted. In particular, you cannot obviously imply the issue in connection with the suppressed name. That could see Lynn Prentice in court or at the very least as the recipient of a tiresome legal letter.

                    • batweka …
                      22 December 2014 at 7:14 pm

                      “you cannot refer to that person in connection with the issue for which name suppression was granted”

                      In any way at all?

                      Does that apply to temporary name suppression?

          • millsy 12.2.1.1.2
            22 December 2014 at 10:34 pm

            I agree. Sex offending is a very serious allegation that sticks even if someone is cleared. I personally dont believe in lynching. Even Tory MPs. Who knows what the guy is capable of, but its best to wait and see.

            Not that him resigning his seat will make much difference. Another Tory will win it easily.

      • batweka 12.2.2
        22 December 2014 at 12:41 pm

        “instead of innuendo and rumour.”

        As opposed to the innuendo and rumour here?

      • felix 12.2.3
        22 December 2014 at 1:19 pm

        “i have doubts that key would have stayed quiet if the charges had a sexual element to them. not so much cos he abhors that behaviour but cos the public would.”

        Has Key said a word about why Richard Worth was sacked yet?

      • repateet 12.2.4
        22 December 2014 at 1:58 pm

        “… slater at his worst. if he knows exactly what the charge and situation surrounding it is he should have published it… instead of innuendo and rumour…”

        Strange approach for “journalist” you reckon?

        Keep saying it “journalist, journalist, journalist, ethics, ethics, ethics.” Don’t matter how often you say things like that the word “scumbag” is the one that keeps being proved.

        • Tracey 12.2.4.1
          22 December 2014 at 3:11 pm

          Wouldnt most journalists consider that whether what they were publishing was true was an important aspect of their role?

          • repateet 12.2.4.1.1
            22 December 2014 at 3:48 pm

            Most journalists would. The ethical ones.
            Is Slater a journalist? Is he ethical. Does he fly kites? Does he tease the public as part of his little power trip? Does he make slurs? Is he simply someone who is not happy unless he is making someone else unhappy? Is he nasty? Is he vindictive?

            A later Batweka comment is right, “… prevent people from being slurred by such allegations … but there are other people who don’t deserve to be treated this way…”

            I contend that this is the way that Slater operates. Which brings him solid acclaim and support but makes people like me suggest that if he’s a journalist, he’s of the scumbag variety. What is his motive for doing the Sabin story? To be the big “story breaking” journo?

        • batweka 12.2.4.2
          22 December 2014 at 3:25 pm

          “Keep saying it “journalist, journalist, journalist, ethics, ethics, ethics.” Don’t matter how often you say things like that the word “scumbag” is the one that keeps being proved.”

          And yet there are journalists who are obviously not scumbags.

        • Pascals bookie 12.2.4.3
          22 December 2014 at 5:40 pm

          Slater doesn’t know shit.

    • tracey 12.3
      22 December 2014 at 1:09 pm

      I am VERY uncomfortable with the turn the thread has taken toward accusing Mr Sabin behind the hand of sexual impropriety. Post your proof or don’t go there.

  13. tracey 13
    22 December 2014 at 12:57 pm

    In case it wasn’t clear from my post at 12.2

    I am VERY uncomfortable with the turn the thread has taken toward accusing Mr Sabin behind the hand of sexual impropriety. Post your proof or don’t go there.

    • batweka 13.1
      22 December 2014 at 1:07 pm

      thanks tracey.

    • Skinny 13.2
      22 December 2014 at 1:29 pm

      Don’t quite agree with the PC approach your taking Tracey. I trust Tiger Mountain & North know the goings on in Tory Northland.

      Wondered why Key & Joyce were keeping a bit of distance between themselves & Sabin during the election campaign. People have told me Sabin is a thug, as for that little worm of a son, never trusted him to be neutral when it mattered.

      Father & Son done a hatchet job on Collins and she is now fighting back, expect her to be pulling the strings behind any links.

      • tracey 13.2.1
        22 December 2014 at 1:34 pm

        PC??

        You and a bunch of people with pseudonyms happy to imply a guy is a sexual offender cos he is a political opponent before there is any proof is nothing to do with throw away labels (PC). Notice imply, no guts to say what they are actually thinking.

        PC is a phrase used by people too lazy to mount a counter argument btw.

        • batweka 13.2.1.1
          22 December 2014 at 1:42 pm

          I agree, it’s not pc. It’s about protecting the integrity of the court process, and it’s about protecting the integrity of people who have to lay sexual assualt complaints. It’s also to prevent people from being slurred by such allegations (not that I particularly care about Sabin, but there are other people who don’t deserve to be treated this way).

          I also trust TM and North’s opinions, and some of the things I have seen them say here seem reasonable to share (I disgree that people are cowards for not using their names). I think there is a line though, and it got crossed once people started speculating on what the charges might be rather than simply sharing their experiences of the man.

          • tracey 13.2.1.1.1
            22 December 2014 at 1:44 pm

            they are not cowards for not using their real names, they are cowards for using that anonymity to cast aspersions of a very serious nature with serious consequences (some of which you alluded to above). You do not use your real name but do not use it as a shield to make serious allegations/innuendo’s which play into many bad ideas…

            they are not being whistleblowers

            • batweka 13.2.1.1.1.1
              22 December 2014 at 1:56 pm

              Are you talking about the sexual assault innuendo, or any of the things shared about Sabin from personal or local experience?

              • Tracey …
                22 December 2014 at 3:04 pm

                The sexual assault innuendo.

                Following that came tiger and skinny, chronologically. I should have made my objection clearer but it still appeared those other comments were triggered by the first innuendo. But I only really intended to call marksman33 a coward… Although i think skinny is taking an opportunity to stick a boot in on that score

            • RedLogix 13.2.1.1.1.2
              22 December 2014 at 3:17 pm

              I agree totally. As a moderator I thought about that about that comment for quite a while. I asked myself – what if this had been said about a left wing politician?

              On that basis I left it alone – but only just. Mainly because its so blatantly just a speculation as distinct from an accusation.

        • Skinny 13.2.1.2
          22 December 2014 at 1:46 pm

          “You and a bunch of people with pseudonyms happy to imply a guy is a sexual offender”

          That’s a bit of a stretch, I just don’t trust an ex cop considering the goings on with the cops up there and then there is Shipton & Rickard.

  14. Marksman33 14
    22 December 2014 at 1:11 pm

    As I say, take from that what you will, I know a bit more but purely anecdotal, we will have to wait and see. Assault is quite a broad term.

    [RL: Leave this alone. I’m still of two minds whether I should have let your first comment stand. I don’t like it and nor do a lot of others here.]

    • tracey 14.1
      22 December 2014 at 1:19 pm

      and as I wrote you are not very subtly using innuendo and hear-say or your own vindictiveness to besmirch this guy with something not yet proven.

      I am not saying you should post your real name (you can claim anonymity for sure) but you are taking a cheap, safe shot at a named person for your entertainment. You sir/madam are a coward.

      • Tiger Mountain 14.1.1
        22 December 2014 at 1:54 pm

        Look I am no coward Tracey, I am being careful while trying to communicate what a dodgepot this guy is. Some of his record is certainly verifiable like his second time around acceptance into Police training after being rejected for alleged “domestic issues”. His transfer to Kaitaia station after misbehaviour towards detainees in Whangarei station.

        I know Mr Sabin personally, I know his second ex wife and have heard some of her accounts, friends know his first wife who was basically “sent to coventry” in the North on his say so. It may be better to say nothing like the Prime Minister is at the moment. But it is certainly no occasion to go to bat for Sabin either on some fairness basis as you appear to be doing.

        • batweka 14.1.1.1
          22 December 2014 at 2:00 pm

          I’ve just reread your comments in this thread, and they seem ok to me (will be interested to see what the mods do).

          Marksman’s comment is the one that crosses the line I think. It’s definitely innuendo rather than stated direct experience, and it’s definitely not first hand.

        • Tracey 14.1.1.2
          22 December 2014 at 3:02 pm

          , i called marksman33 a coward.

          I apologise if my later wording implicated you in that charge.

          I am not batting for Sabin.

          I am batting for the justice system
          I am batting for victims of sexual violence who find it hard to come forward
          I am batting for those falsely slurred

          I am not batting for censorship

          I am batting for respect of a justice process that already treats victims badly

          • batweka 14.1.1.2.1
            22 December 2014 at 3:35 pm

            I’m hearing you on that tracey.

            Sometimes we have this thing here where we think it’s ok to behave badly because the person we are directing it is a political opponent (the other classic example was when peopel felt free to give Slater shit for being a sickness beneficiary). I think when we take that tack we entrench ourselves in an endless war of us and them. For me the point, politically, is to get enough people in NZ in agreement on the ethics of politics as much as the politics themselves. Stepping over certain lines undermines our credibility and damages others who causes we are supposedly fighting.

            • Tracey 14.1.1.2.1.1
              22 December 2014 at 3:45 pm

              with you weka… espesh that last sentence.

              • emergency mike …
                22 December 2014 at 4:57 pm

                Agree batweka and Tracey. ‘Make if this what you will, but my mate knows someone who told him that blah blah…’ is whaleoil rumour mongering.

                It doesn’t matter if it turns out to be true or not, this place is better than WO. Let’s keep it that way. Comment after evidence of whatever comes to light, not before.

                • Colonial Rawshark …
                  23 December 2014 at 1:38 am

                  So now there is all this keen and principled talk on letting and trusting the police to investigate one of their own.

                  When this suddenly happen? Did their track record in these kinds of cases suddenly improve?

                  Crowd sourcing reasonably credible intelligence, information and leads is going to be one of the future strengths of The Standard for the Left. We need to find methods of being able to do that.

        • Murray Rawshark 14.1.1.3
          23 December 2014 at 1:30 am

          I haven’t heard anything good about the bloke from people I know up north. Quite the opposite, in fact.

  15. tracey 15
    22 December 2014 at 1:28 pm

    Mike sabin has been doing “year in review” newsletters for his website and he gives himself a pretty good pass rating. 100% I think.

    2012
    http://mikesabin.co.nz/pdf/Mike-Sabin-2012-Year-in-Review.pdf
    2103
    http://www.mikesabin.co.nz/pdf/2013-The-Year-in-Review.pdf

    …

  16. felix 16
    22 December 2014 at 1:50 pm

    I’m not going to speculate, but I will say this:

    Just look at his face.

    • Anne 16.1
      22 December 2014 at 2:46 pm

      +1000

      Remarkable what you can tell from a person’s face.

      • batweka 16.1.1
        22 December 2014 at 3:30 pm

        is this a joke?

        • felix 16.1.1.1
          22 December 2014 at 4:10 pm

          Mine wasn’t. The man is a cretin and it’s written all over him.

          • mickysavage 16.1.1.1.1
            22 December 2014 at 8:38 pm

            Yep I have met a lot of cops during my professional life. Many of them are good people, dedicated to the communities they serve. Some of them are just there for the power. My initial impression of Sabin put him in the latter group.

            • felix 16.1.1.1.1.1
              22 December 2014 at 9:37 pm

              Yep that’s it. He represents that rotten, sadistic thread that runs through the police force and anyone who’s had much to do with them will recognise it immediately.

              • Anne …
                22 December 2014 at 10:08 pm

                I know two women who were once married to cops. Their former hubbies exercised power over them and tried to control every facet of their lives. One of the hubbies even had a colleague intercept his wife’s phone calls so that he knew every minute of the day what she was doing and where she was going. Both cops were psychopaths.

                I read an international research paper once that concluded the police, teaching profession and the health sector were the most likely professions for psychopaths. All of them areas where control of others is a predominant feature.

        • The Murphey 16.1.1.2
          22 December 2014 at 4:18 pm

          Q. Why would it be a joke?

        • Anne 16.1.1.3
          22 December 2014 at 4:18 pm

          @ batweka.
          I think you are reading too much into what I said… and perhaps felix before me.

          I was NOT speculating as to the nature of the alleged assault. But some personality traits can be reasonably accurately assessed from a person’s facial expressions. He has the look about him of a bully boy.

          Edit: felix has been less polite but more accurate. 🙂

    • Ovid 16.2
      22 December 2014 at 4:46 pm

      Phrenology back in fashion, huh?

      • Tom Jackson 16.2.1
        22 December 2014 at 4:49 pm

        Works with the Mekon.

      • felix 16.2.2
        22 December 2014 at 5:08 pm

        Don’t be silly, Ovid.

        Do you not have the ability to recognise thugs, bullies, and other dangerous miscreants? It’s a pretty important evolutionary trait.

        • batweka 16.2.2.1
          22 December 2014 at 5:47 pm

          Have you met Sabin?

          • felix 16.2.2.1.1
            22 December 2014 at 7:06 pm

            I don’t need to, weks. I go entirely by face.

            • batweka 16.2.2.1.1.1
              22 December 2014 at 7:10 pm

              ok. I think the evolutionary trait, reading people, esp the instinctual stuff is very important. Not sure about being able to do that from a photo but then I’m more a gut instinct person than a visual person, so maybe it’s easier for me in person*. I look at the photos of some people and they make me wonder about them, but am not getting that with Mike Sabin. Can you say what it is exactly, or is it more an impression?

              *actually I think it’s also a body language thing, because I could pick it from watching someone on film.

              • felix …
                22 December 2014 at 7:26 pm

                Sorry, I’m being a bit cheeky. I didn’t really intend “look at his face” to be taken at face value 😉

                Observe his manner, listen to him speak, however you experience a person’s character I think his is on open display.

                • batweka …
                  22 December 2014 at 8:16 pm

                  ok, well that was a weird conversation.

                  I don’t have TV, so have no idea what he’s like as a person other than what people have written here.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  22 December 2014 at 8:46 pm

                  Nah, he’s a really nice guy who just accidentally formed the opinion that the right to remain silent is a bad thing.

      • tracey 16.2.3
        22 December 2014 at 5:52 pm

        the detailed study of the shape and size of the cranium as a supposed indication of character and mental abilities.

    • Murray Rawshark 16.3
      23 December 2014 at 1:43 am

      I can see what sort of poaka he was from his face, the expression, and his posture. I’ve seen it all too often.

  17. millsy 17
    22 December 2014 at 2:37 pm

    Perhaps he fell out of favour with the Whale….??

  18. Karen 18
    22 December 2014 at 5:39 pm

    I haven’t read the Whaleoil stuff (even donotlink adds to his readership figures) but based on what has been reported elsewhere WO is gunning for Sabin.

    I am wondering whether this is a way of getting revenge on his son Brook, as it was Brook who kept challenging Collins until she tried to divert the questioning by naming Katie Bradford as someone who had asked for favours (wrongly, as it happened). That slip by Collins put her on gardening leave. Are we seeing a bit of pay back double?

    • tracey 18.1
      22 December 2014 at 5:58 pm

      as day has meandered on I have been wondering

      1. who gave the media the heads up… is this what slater is trying to show that he fed the story to them?

      2. if one is correct how does an MP from the government avoid scrutiny for this long? i guess they cant follow all mps but surely there were rumours

      afterall some in the gallery claimed after the event that there had been rumours of Edes black ops.

      • Anne 18.1.1
        22 December 2014 at 6:47 pm

        @ tracey.
        Wouldn’t be surprised if someone in the police force gave the initial tip off.

        • tracey 18.1.1.1
          23 December 2014 at 2:26 pm

          I was thinking more likely given to a xabinetminister under “no surprises”… Then discussed at cabinet… And then to Ms Collins ear, although Ms Tolley has been revealled as a source of Slater…

    • Anne 18.2
      22 December 2014 at 6:41 pm

      Are we seeing a bit of pay back double?

      I would say so. Lets face it, Slater is someone who has no compunction when it comes to accusing others of something he is equally guilty of himself. Maybe it was Slater who supplied her with the wrong information in the first place.

    • Pete George 18.3
      22 December 2014 at 8:56 pm

      It’s hard to tell if WO is joining in or driving the outing of Sabin. He has extensive sources within National. He’s given a few more hints.

      Did Mike Sabin advise anyone in the National party he was under investigation?

      Did he disclose everything?

      Was it only after he was pushed on details that he fessed up, and then after 24 hours had elapsed?

      Why has National sat on this waiting for the proverbial to hit the fan instead of neutering it politically?

      (Random Impertinent Questions)

      The time of year makes it an awkward time to deal with it politically, especially if Sabin has not been following the “no surprises” rule.

      I think Sabin is only subject to an investigation at this stage, not charged. It limits options if he is not found guilty of something.

      • Paul 18.3.1
        22 December 2014 at 9:04 pm

        Slater operating a daily drip..drip..release of information.
        Wonder if Key appreciates his return to Dirty Politicking?

      • RedLogix 18.3.2
        22 December 2014 at 9:08 pm

        If the MP has any portfolio responsibility the PM will usually ask for an MP under investigation to step down – on the grounds that they cannot effectively do their job in those circumstances. Once a charge is laid or a conviction secured then the choices usually become obvious.

        However if Sabine is only an MP then the options are more limited because the PM really can only ask for an expulsion from the Party. And that is a far more irreversible step which I think would only apply to the most egregious and problematic investigations.

        All up – the only practical choice open to Key at present may be ‘no comment’.

      • tracey 18.3.3
        23 December 2014 at 2:28 pm

        All questions equally applicable to judith collins oravida fiasco. Obviously substituting investigation breach conflict of interest and cabinet manual.

    • The Al1en 18.4
      22 December 2014 at 9:03 pm

      “Are we seeing a bit of pay back double?”

      I’m quite sure that’s it, but could also be him positioning himself as ‘balanced’, especially with this new supposed non right non left website that’s coming.

      One thing for certain is Brooke won’t be on it.

  19. dale 19
    22 December 2014 at 10:02 pm

    A lot of comments saying that Slater doesn’t know shit. That must mean Hagars book is full of it. And some here even eluded to domestic violence. I think you should watch and wait.

    • RedLogix 19.1
      22 December 2014 at 10:34 pm

      Well no. Everyone who actually read the book said that it was up to Hagar’s usual well researched and documented standard. So far I’ve only heard of one relatively minor factual error.

      So on the balance of probabilities there is only one person here even more full of it than Slater.

      • Pete George 19.1.1
        23 December 2014 at 6:35 am

        “So far I’ve only heard of one relatively minor factual error.”

        There’s a number of errors. And a number of claims that don’t provide proof and have been strongly denied. And careful insinuations with carefully selected communications that don’t stack up as “well researched and documented”.

        There is ample evidence that Slater is a devious arsehole braggard but that was fairly well known already.

        • mickysavage 19.1.1.1
          23 December 2014 at 7:43 am

          My reading of the book is that any deviation from reality was because Hager took Slater’s comments at face value.

          • Pete George 19.1.1.1.1
            23 December 2014 at 7:49 am

            That’s partly right. Hager also cherry picked to suit an agenda.

            • tracey 19.1.1.1.1.1
              23 December 2014 at 8:11 am

              please post links to the documents he chose not to include and explain how each didnt suit his agenda?.

            • Te Reo Putake 19.1.1.1.1.2
              23 December 2014 at 8:15 am

              Well, you’d be the expert in cherry picking to suit an agenda, Pete. It’s your raison d’etre. Mind you, you seem to think cherry picking means dissecting an individual piece of fruit, then extrapolating to condemn the entire crop.

            • mickysavage 19.1.1.1.1.3
              23 December 2014 at 8:20 am

              You mean he used the really awful disgusting stuff and ignored the run of the mill stuff? Of course he did. This is what writers do.

            • batweka 19.1.1.1.1.4
              23 December 2014 at 8:37 am

              “That’s partly right. Hager also cherry picked to suit an agenda.”

              That’s partly right. Pete George speaks from his bias while pretending he doesn’t have any. God knows what his agenda is.

        • tracey 19.1.1.2
          23 December 2014 at 8:14 am

          as long as you arent referring to the notion that Hager said slater and others forced Hide to resign as being one of the so called errors.

          Cos Hager never wrote that in the book, it was claimed by media and Hide who either didnt read the book or didnt understand how the words on the page fit together

        • Skinny 19.1.1.3
          23 December 2014 at 8:36 am

          What is your opinion of Mike Sabin seeking to remove right to silence and choosing silence. Hipocritial or what?

    • Murray Rawshark 19.2
      23 December 2014 at 1:50 am

      It doesn’t mean that Hager’s book is full of shit at all. He reported Slug Boy’s emails. The emails may or may not have been full of shit, but Hager reported them faithfully.

      You’re not overly bright, are you Dale? Maybe it would be better if you got someone else to write your posts for you. Your blubbery mate does.

  20. dale 20
    22 December 2014 at 11:51 pm

    Red, your very good at talking out of both sides of your mouth. Is it any wonder that the left won’t increase their vote. I made a statement and all you can do is insult me. I know much more than you think. The conspiracy theories that appear on this site just reinforce the mind set that you have. If this really is the voice of the Labour movement, then God help us. Sabin is in trouble, big time. Don’t be jealous just cause your not getting fed the information. One day you can be FREED too.

    • RedLogix 20.1
      23 December 2014 at 12:39 am

      If you lack the wit to even use the reply button properly, I’m thinking you take offense altogether too readily.

      You made a statement, and I responded with the fact that no-one who has actually read the book and said something about it in the public domain said it was ‘full of shit’. The exact opposite – most commentators made specific mention that it was up to Hagar’s usual high standards of research and documentation.

      If you are going to make a claim that says the exact opposite of this you are going to have to:

      1. Actually read the book.

      2. Point out specifically where and why the documentation is comprehensively wrong.

      3. Or point out specifically where and why the conclusions Hagar draws from the documents are comprehensively wrong.

      Then you might have solid grounds to make the claim you have. If you manage to do a proper job of this, then I promise you will get a hearing at The Standard. Until then you are making an unsupported assertion and a fool of yourself at the same time.

      Is this answer simple enough for you to understand or does it sound like another conspiracy theory to you?

      • McFlock 20.1.1
        23 December 2014 at 12:53 am

        maybe dale thinks the book is nothing but stolen emails written by slater, with no input from anyone else.

        But then that would mean that Hager had put his name to work that was entirely written by someone else. Hager doesn’t do that. Slater does.

      • Paul 20.1.2
        23 December 2014 at 2:35 am

        Unlikely to be literate enough.

    • Greg 20.2
      14 January 2015 at 1:17 am

      Has the investigation been shut down.
      And now we have the spook manager resigning.

  21. Treetop 21
    24 December 2014 at 10:33 am

    Quite a few skeletons have come out of the cupboard since the election.

Links to post

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