NACT attack on Roy gets personal

Written By: - Date published: 1:46 pm, August 22nd, 2010 - 60 comments
Categories: Media, national/act government, rodney hide - Tags: , , ,

We’ve heard stories about the, to quote the Herald, “depth” of Heather Roy’s relationship with her former senior advisor Dr Simon Ewing-Jarvie for some time. But this isn’t Whaleoil and adults’ personal lives are their own. What’s surprising is that the Right have decided to use it against her. Check out today’s piece in the Herald:

“Concerns have emerged at the depth of ousted minister Heather Roy’s relationship with her most senior adviser”

“The Herald on Sunday observed Roy leaving Ewing-Jarvie’s home yesterday morning.

Her car, which was parked outside his house at 10.30pm on Friday, was in the same place at 7am.”

I don’t see how that can be taken as anything other than a big threat from National/ACT (from whom these “concerns” obviously “emerged”) to Roy that if she refuses to toe the line – which is, presumably, returning to Parliament, confessing her eternal love for ACT’s infallible leader, and sitting there quietly voting for government legislation like a good girl – her personal reputation and family is not off limits.

I’m no fan of Roy or her politics – and part of me is tempted to revel in the Right eating itself – but this is dirty, despicable stuff from the Government, ably assisted by a gutter rag of a newspaper.

60 comments on “NACT attack on Roy gets personal ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Zaphod Beeblebrox 1
    22 August 2010 at 1:57 pm

    For a more balanced approach read Debra Coddington- she hates them all!

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz-government/news/article.cfm?c_id=144&objectid=10667874

  2. ghostwhowalksnz 2
    22 August 2010 at 2:09 pm

    My thoughts are the same about the HoS story.
    They dont send a reporter to sit all night unless there is a very good tip

  3. Outofbed 3
    22 August 2010 at 2:47 pm

    I agree but,
    If her personal reputation is off limits, then why post this?
    And why am I commenting?

    • gobsmacked 3.1
      22 August 2010 at 2:52 pm

      Oob – I feel the same way, but Farrar’s got there first, and he’s a Respected Political Commentator, so no mea culpa for us.

  4. gobsmacked 4
    22 August 2010 at 2:50 pm

    It’s very nasty. It’s probably going to get nastier.

    Warning: Labour must NOT get sucked into this. There’s going to be dirt flying everywhere, and the worst thing people like Mallard and Hodgson can do is get involved. I don’t want to hear “Labour alleged in Parliament today …”, followed by the latest gossip on Hide or Roy or anyone else from the Kamikaze Party. (The Greens won’t – they never do. Good on them).

    Let ACT smear each other into oblivion, and drag National down with them. They don’t need any help from the opposition.

    • RedLogix 4.1
      22 August 2010 at 2:56 pm

      I was going to write something similar myself gs, but I deleted it. Fact is New Zealanders love wallowing in this kind of salacious poison and like with alcohol….can’t control themselves around it.

      No amount of self-righteous ranting on our part is going to stuff this ugly genie back where it came from. It’s open season on politician’s private lives from here on in.

      • loota 4.1.1
        22 August 2010 at 3:03 pm

        RL, I believe its known as “Shortland St Conditioning”.

      • lprent 4.1.2
        22 August 2010 at 9:10 pm

        Ditto… Saw Farrar dogwhistling it. Had a post mapped out in my head, then decided that I couldn’t write it without speculating on his personal life.

  5. Outofbed 5
    22 August 2010 at 3:09 pm

    But then again i guess we on the left feel like that because we are actually capable of empathy.
    The Act party is all about I me me mine so.. Fuck the “self-righteous ranting”
    I have changed my my mind fuck her, fuck the lot of them bring on the smears let the fuckers implode

    Jez i feel better for that.. as you were

  6. loota 6
    22 August 2010 at 3:15 pm

    Well the NZH just sinks lower and lower

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10667972

    Meanwhile, a mystery brunette caused a stir when appearing to perform an intimate act on Laws at the table in a posh Auckland restaurant while he dined with several media stars.

    Onlookers were shocked at their actions at Toto restaurant in central Auckland last year.

    …
    Those seated at the same table as Laws were said to be aware the act was taking place but ignored it as they didn’t want to make a scene.

    “There was enough interesting people around the table at the time that everyone chose to ignore it,” one said. “We just left them to it and the rest of us had a good time.”

    Laws’ date was described as “mutton dressed as lamb”.

    “She wore a very, very low-cut top,” said the source.

    The Herald really should stop hiring journalists from Truth.

    • Rex Widerstrom 6.1
      22 August 2010 at 9:07 pm

      My opinion of Lhaws was about to go down another notch till I read:

      The encounter took place in May last year at a dinner attended by Marcus Lush, Martin Devlin, Willie Jackson, John Tamihere, Maggie Barry, Karyn Hay and then-Mediaworks boss Brent Impey.

      Having an “intimate act” performed upon me… stabbing myself in the face with a fork… trying to choke to death on a fish bone… goosing the waiter… calling in a bomb threat… any of these would be a valid technique to employ to avoid having to listen to that conversation 😀

    • Deborah Kean 6.2
      23 August 2010 at 12:29 am

      Does Truth still exist?

      • Sean 6.2.1
        23 August 2010 at 1:18 pm

        Yes, it is the ‘Truth Weekender’, and it’s quality is fairly low. David Garrett is a columnist, he gets page 7 all to himself under the by-line ‘Straight-shooting from the Beehive’.

        The rest is about porn stars, the immorality of ‘World famous in New Zealand’ people like Michael Lhaws when they can get those stories, otherwise it is about the immorality of people overseas, gangs, the drug trade (often stories from overseas there), arming the police. Oh, and anything Steve Crow does (the Boobs on Bikes dude).

        Disclaimer: my contact with the ‘Truth Weekender’ is purely work related.

  7. Anne 7
    22 August 2010 at 3:40 pm

    Back in the ‘good old days’ before Hide became an MP, he was regularly feeding gossip and other stories to journalists. He was overheard on one or two occasions boasting about it. Whoever leaked the information and caused the HOS to stake out the home of Roy’s former ministerial adviser, you can be rest assured the story first came from Mr Hide. Leopards never change their spots. They simply learn to hide them better.

    Couldn’t agree with you more gobsmacked. Labour will be asking more questions – no doubt about that – but they are going to have to be extremely careful how they phrase those questions.

  8. Bill 8
    22 August 2010 at 4:09 pm

    When politics is dead – the politics of liberal democracies the world over are on a life(less) support machine at best – personality and salacious gossip is all that remains.

    So, welcome.

    • RedLogix 8.1
      22 August 2010 at 4:30 pm

      Uggg…you’re right. Consider bubble popped.

    • RobertM 8.2
      23 August 2010 at 10:43 pm

      Given the hypocrisy of the Act sisterhood. Send them a message and vote Lisa Lewis for mayor of Hamilton. At least she has the sense to charge for it. $7000 for a night of 14 hours sex with the good body of a surgically enhanced Penthouse centreforld. I always admire and forgive beauty. I can not forgive the lack of makeup on the Roy face. Yes I am a bit sexist but its a necessity. Like many I can only have good sex if there 19-22 or black or possibly if their magnificently enhanced.And yes I want that published because truth and blatant comment is sometime necessary and one of the reasons the Roys are politically useless in there not good looking and do not photography well. Enhancing woman and mens sex is a good idea. Suppressing it is bad-whatever the color.

      [Yes you are being a sexist old fool. That in itself isn’t a mortal offence, even here. But try not to sail off into the wild blue yonder….RL]

  9. Puddleglum 9
    22 August 2010 at 4:39 pm

    This morning on ‘Sunday’ (Mediawatch) they talked to Joe Atkinson, an Auckland University Senior Lecturer, about news journalism. One line that caught me was words to the effect that “[black and white salacious/sensationalist] stories ignore the institutional factors and power relations that exist behind many of these stories and leave out the politics and replace it with a kind of conservative morality.” It’s at around 22 minutes into Mediawatch

    Sums it up. Apart from sidelining and neutering political debate it also implicitly condones and reinforces the kind of emotionally harmful attack on individuals that puts many people off putting their heads above the ramparts and getting spotlighted by the media (and not just when it comes to Parliamentary politics).

    • Marty G 9.1
      22 August 2010 at 6:13 pm

      it is actually really interesting when you hear how stories have got into the public arena, or even when you just remember to ask yourself ‘who’s behind this story, and what’s their motive?’.

      The idea that the media simply reports the more newsworthy news is laughable.

    • Bill 9.2
      22 August 2010 at 6:34 pm

      Tuku Morgan’s underpants for example? Remember that? And did we ever get informed on what was actually going on at Aotearoa Television? If we did, I missed it. I just remember underpants.

      Anyway. On more serious matters, the journalist cannot report on the institutional forces at play partly because to be promoted up through the journalistic ranks, you need to display ‘correct’ thought processes. So mainstream journalists are frighteningly orthodox and conservative.

      Take the issues of Iran…or Iraq. We are constantly told that the political arena is being contested by religious factions and religious fanatics and I guess we are meant to respond by rolling our eyes and muttering something about the unfathomable nature of the situation.

      Yet the situation is simple to understand and explain. In Iran, the political left was eliminated in the 50s by that nice Shah that the West backed. And who the West spoonfed the necessary info to, on who should be eliminated. The vacuum was filled by religion.

      And in Iraq, Sadam was similarly fed all the info he needed and given all the tactical advise he needed and was afforded all the blind eyes he needed as he eliminated the left. And now, with the dictatorship gone, religion steps up to fill the space that a political left would have filled.

      And in Indonesia there were 1.5 million leftists disappeared, eliminated or otherwise neutralised. And in Chile and El Salvador and on and on and on…the same shit. It’s not always the case that the aspirations of the left are completely annihilated through mass murder, but where they are, religion picks up the reins.

      And then the left is eliminated here too. But through the more subtle act of being rendered invisible by the establishment. After a while, invisibility leads to amnesia. And then we’re into the territory of that old saying about having to know where you’ve been to know where you are, and to know where you’re going.

      But we don’t.

      And although we are on a different trajectory to one that would lead us to the stage of having to rely on religious analyses to explain our world, we are at a point which is arguably worse…where most people believe that this is ‘just the way it is’, that it has ‘always been this way’ and that insofar as everything is in its ‘natural’ place, nothing need be explained….which is kinda very religious now that I look at it written down.

      • Puddleglum 9.2.1
        22 August 2010 at 9:03 pm

        Couldn’t have said it better myself, Bill (as I’m about to prove).

        The unreflective normalising of our world could only happen with the help of a gigantic memory hole and the reporting of current events entirely disconnected from any context of the machinations of ‘power’ (in the abstract sense) and, more concretely, the powerful.

        I’ve often thought how the only two places that people in the ‘modern, liberal democracies’ will allow themselves to think that systemic corruption (as opposed to ‘bad apples’), lust for power and wealth, tyrrany and brutality, etc. could occur is either somewhere else on the globe – inhabited by suitably ‘pre-modern’ people who haven’t yet sufficiently learnt the virtues of our way of life – or at some vague time in their own society’s past when their ancestors similarly hadn’t yet discovered the true way. (The one place such fundamental flaws no longer exist is right here, right now).

        In some heroic feat of sheer gullibility, people in these blessed societies seem to think that, at some point in the past, powerful people (who everyone admits existed) suddenly decided to give away their power ‘to the people’.

        Admittedly, in America’s case this was, apparently, through the revolutionary efforts of mere ordinary folk over the aristocratic cruelty of Mother England. (Let’s forget, for a moment, that the Bushes, the Gore’s and an uncanny number of powerful families in America today are actually cousins of, or in other ways descended from, the British Royal family – and, hence, European royalty. In effect, they’re the North American branch of the family.)

        In the UK’s case I suppose we should assume that this unprecedented conversion of the powerful was achieved through the strange and inexplicable flowering of parliamentary democracy – even though, until as late as the first third of the 19th Century a city like Manchester had no representatives in Parliament.

        Remarkably, the powerful nevertheless appeared to have, almost overnight, foregone this absolute power and the immense wealth that goes with it pretty much of their own accord (presumably because they were so convinced by the humanity and good reasoning of all those Classical Liberal philosophers?). The fruits of the brave, new world being forged were to be available to all.

        Resistance and protests, let alone brutally repressed ones, seem not to have featured in our ascent to universal adult suffrage, abolition of slavery, child labour laws, pensions, ‘gender equality’, etc., etc.. Instead, it was the inherent, unstoppable virtue of the western way of life that has delivered us such unheard of luck.

        (What incidental harm that might be acknowledged to have occurred is often seen as the unfortunate but necessary ‘birth pangs’ of capitalism and the bounty it has brought to us all; this bounty arises inevitably, so the sages reassure us, from its basis in elemental freedom. Which I guess explains why every retail worker, road gang member, cleaner, clerical worker and factory hand meets the day with a merry heart, a merry tune whistling on their lips and a merry ‘freeman’s’ smile for all they meet.).

        And, even more remarkably, these powerful people, families and classes have never tried to regain such immense, overarching power – despite having an increasingly larger proportion of the power and wealth on offer by which they could surely regain such wealth and power, if they so chose and if it were suitably employed. Oh, wait …

        Ok, that was all a bit sarcastic. The saddest part of it all, though, is that the above glowing account today passes as reasonably sophisticated history and, even worse, serves as the main ‘historical context’ within which the ‘thinking person’ understands today’s world.

        You know, the clash of the ‘modern’ with the ‘pre-modern’, the liberal with the traditional, free societies with enslaved ones, the future with the past, etc. explains it all – as opposed to the idea that the rather more historically enduring clash between those with power and those without it has simply adopted another guise and another vocabulary.

        • just saying 9.2.1.1
          22 August 2010 at 9:51 pm

          It seems to take about twenty years for some cases of systemic abuse to be “allowed” to be acknowldeged (by some) in NZ. Whether it’s the police, social welfare homes, psychiatric hospitals, churches, the military………. – wherever and whenever there is a substantial power differential, there is serious abuse.

          But after twenty odd years, and still with no legal accountability, those whose lives or loved-ones lives have been diminished or destroyed, are sometimes allowed a small acknoweldgement. As long as it’s long enough ago for New Zealanders to be able to feel reassured that ‘that was then’ and things are so different now, and it was only a few ‘bad apples’ anyway. No action is taken and victims are expected to have ‘gotten over it’ anyway. The twenty year rule seems to ensure nothing ever changes and the populace is never woken to the reality that it’s happening now, all around us. Many of the nice respectable people around us, people we all trust implicitly, and would never imagine deliberately harming or screwing over anyone, are doing so with impunity in the hum-drum routines of their daily lives. And if their actions come to light, the public is ready to crucify the vicitims, and sleep the sleep of the just, in their safe beds at night.

          Of course those of a different race, creed, sexual orientation etc. are often exempted from this immunity. And this helps feed into the fairytale about the good-guys, and highly identifiable bad guys, and feeds into ongoing discrimination against these groups. Which also helps the majority feel safe in their beds.

        • prism 9.2.1.2
          22 August 2010 at 10:08 pm

          How true puddleglum. Resistance and protests, let alone brutally repressed ones, seem not to have featured in our ascent to universal adult suffrage, abolition of slavery, child labour laws, pensions, ‘gender equality’, etc., etc.. Instead, it was the inherent, unstoppable virtue of the western way of life that has delivered us such unheard of luck.

          I notice regularly in conversation by young adults that there is a discounting of the historical effort that fighters for better conditions have put in to some cause sometimes for decades. The idea is that the enlightened western world would have brought in such practices as a natural progression in time, and all the effort was unnecessary, possibly just speeding that introduction. There is ignorance of social history and the dedicated work that the minority did for the good of countless others.

      • RobertM 9.2.2
        23 August 2010 at 10:28 pm

        Bill the essence is that in l953, Churchill decided that Egypt, Iraq and Iran could not be allowed to develop through true democratic process, because true democracy in such nations would unleash forces too dangerous and not only to the west. Churchill essentially persuaded the Dulles brothers and that has been US policy till this day. We build those nations up for five or six years and then pull them down again. Always taking them a bit furthur down with each major hit and transferring a bit more of their major beauty and talent to jobs in west. The classic example was in the Iraq – Iran war at a certain critical side, the Americans decided one side was winning, so they turned around and supported the other subtly and actively to prolong the struggle and maximise the damage to both. I think the United States is right, particularly went you observe developments inEgypt and that 90% of their female populatiion still suffer female circumcision.
        But if your an Act puritan like Newman and Coddington and oppose 18 year old solo mothers enjoying recreational sex. Or even Paula Bennett. Aren’t you a bit like the Taliban in wanting to control female sexuality and their partners.

  10. Claudia 10
    22 August 2010 at 4:49 pm

    No comment. No comment. Get it ? No comment.

    Dammit, it’s boring. Where’s the policy angle ?

  11. Graham 11
    22 August 2010 at 4:59 pm

    Wow, your capacity for self-delusion knows no bounds.

    Facts:
    – The SIS withheld security clearance for Simon Ewing-Jarvie
    – His role, as Heather Roy’s adviser when she was Associate Minister of Defence, gave him access to key military secrets and information of critical importance to the security of New Zealand
    – He personally amended drafts of the New Zealand Defence Force review
    – SIS officers had been attempting to carry out the clearance work on him for most of the year but had difficulty pinning him down to discuss details (a failure on their part, in my opinion – they should have exercised some authority and given him a time and date, then if he doesn’t turn up, grow a pair and sack him).

    But no, for the Herald to dare to actually report on this is some massive conspiracy by the Government, and the Herald is acting as their lackey, and should not dare to report on a Minister’s private details at all. The fact that maybe, just maybe, this might have some wider implications for our Defence Force doesn’t matter.

    And yet, we definitely DO need to know (according to other writers here) the details of John Key’s financial interests, who donates money to the Nats, etc, presumably because it might have some impact on their functioning as Ministers.

    Hmmm, anyone else see a contradiction here?

    Yes I know, you’re all different, entitled to different points of view, blah blah blah …

    • bbfloyd 11.1
      22 August 2010 at 5:25 pm

      Graham… do you understand what “hoist by your own petard” means? if you don’t, then i suggest you look it up.
      the very fact that sis files have been released for perusal by the general public was the result of a decision taken by the person responsible for that agency. now who do you think that is? Rodney Hide? Ronald Mcdonald? mickey mouse maybe?
      since when has indulging in character assassination and innuendo become an acceptable way of running a political party? the only example i can recall where those kind of politics were an acceptable tool for framing political debate was when the nazis formed the propaganda ministry in the 1930’s. there are obviously others, but i would put money on most, if not all of the governments who sanctioned that kind of gutter politics being totalitarian.
      we are rapidly approaching the point where people have started becoming afraid to speak out when injustices are being perpetrated by the governing administration.( in fact, there is a body of opinion that thinks it’s already got to that point). who in their right mind would want their personal lives picked over by what passes for political journalists simply because they were foolish enough to complain? Paula Bennett should take a bow. she has opened the floodgates.
      when people like yourself are prepared to accept that this kind of information being released for public discussion, then the days of open, intelligent discourse will become just a nostalgic dream for the old folk.

    • gobsmacked 11.2
      22 August 2010 at 5:28 pm

      @Graham

      On Monday, John Key was asked if he had confidence in his then Minister, Heather Roy. He said he did.

      John Key is not only the Prime Minister. He is also the Minister for the SIS.

      Now you are alleging serious incompetence by Mr Key. Perhaps you should address your concerns to him. Or do you think the Standard has more responsibility for these matters than the Prime Minister?

  12. William Joyce 12
    22 August 2010 at 5:11 pm

    I agree with gobsmacked. Let’s let them eat their young & stay silent.
    Labour & co must not be seen to be involved nor to be pleased lest they get accused of dirty politics.
    Those involved are already better at it. This is ‘a fixin ta gets ugly’ and personal and the innocent could get hurt.

  13. Outofbed 13
    22 August 2010 at 5:30 pm

    So lets take a National cabinet Minister “the member for Nelson” [:-]who lets say, has had an “interesting” private life, nowhere have I ever seen reports of where his car has been parked overnight in the past in the MSM
    When would it be acceptable for the media or me in a blog to list where when and who? namely his “private details” If he was associate defence minister would that then be alright? No it wouldn’t .

    How ever insidiously nasty that particular man is It is just not fair on his family, And the same applies to Roy and her kids its frankly, appalling

    • Marty G 13.1
      22 August 2010 at 6:15 pm

      I understand the concern, out of bed but do you think we do more to prevent this kind of gutter politics and gutter journalism taking place by staying silent or by calling out those involved?

      • RedLogix 13.1.1
        22 August 2010 at 6:33 pm

        Because when the right does it, the MSM spins it with either a sneaky admiration for their ‘winner-takes-all hardball gamesmanship’, maybe even a little ‘unfortunately demeaning’….

        But when the left does it, or is even indirect associated by denouncing it… then it’s gutter politics from Labour again and isn’t everyone ‘sick of it’?

        The narratives are so predicatable.

        • Tigger 13.1.1.1
          22 August 2010 at 8:32 pm

          Nice RL. The right is allowed to be vile. The left is supposed to be above all this. But so long as the right is eating it’s own then I can’t help but feel karma working. Not that it makes it any more appealing to watch. It’s boring and nasty. Cover the real news MSM, or further sink into irrelevance.

  14. Nick C 14
    22 August 2010 at 8:45 pm

    “I don’t see how that can be taken as anything other than a big threat from National/ACT (from whom these “concerns’ obviously “emerged’) to Roy that if she refuses to toe the line.”

    Oh come on this is clearly just tabloid journalism. Why do you always have to attribute political motivations?

    • Puddleglum 14.1
      22 August 2010 at 9:42 pm

      “Why do you always have to attribute political motivations?”

      Well, it’s just a strange itch, I guess. Here’s two possibilities NickC.

      1. Those in the beltway, including journalists, knew nothing of this aspect of Roy’s personal life. Rodney, however, clearly did. He went public musing about the ‘unusual influence’ this bloke had over Roy. Why would he say that? Well, knowing the typical tendency to ‘tabloid journalism’ you are clearly aware of he may, perhaps, have thought that providing journalists with that tid-bit might make them look further.

      2. Those in the beltway, including journalists, knew everything about this aspect of Roy’s personal life. They kept quiet about it as they have done with many politicians’ personal circumstances. Rodney, realising they knew this, went public musing about the ‘unusual influence’ this bloke had over Roy. Why would he say that? Well, knowing the typical tendency to ‘tabloid journalism’ you are clearly aware of he may, perhaps, have thought that providing journalists with the ‘cover’ to now reveal the relationship would let the dogs slip the leash, mouths salivating at being allowed to put a ‘juicy one’ before the public (at last).

      I suppose there’s a third option:

      3. Those in the beltway, including journalists and Rodney, knew nothing about this aspect of Roy’s personal life. Rodney went public musing aloud about something that struck him – in a kind of Pooh-ish sort of perplexingish way – about the ‘unusual influence’ this bloke seemed to have over Roy.( In his innocence he didn’t share your understanding of ‘typical tabloid journalism’.) Journalists, perhaps, were similarly perplexed by what might be behind Rodney’s interesting behavioural observation and thought they’d have a closer look. Bingo! Who would have thought what they’d find?

  15. RobertM 15
    22 August 2010 at 9:21 pm

    [Do you really want that posted? It seems like the kind of thing you might think the better of in the morning. It’s saved and I’ll put it back if you really want….RL]

  16. WOOF 16
    22 August 2010 at 9:30 pm

    I smell the buried bones of political motivation 🙂

  17. Jum 17
    23 August 2010 at 2:06 am

    captcha: woman

    And no doubt if it had been a male’s car outside a female’s place it would have been ‘gee what a man’.

    The misogyny in this country is proved beyond doubt with the behaviour of the media and the rightwing groups. What depths will these bottomfeeders trawl? Any woman who associates with these NAct trolls gets damaged by them.

  18. Random Lurker 18
    23 August 2010 at 2:50 am

    I’m not sure I agree with your use of imagery of a real person’s decapitated head to make a point.

    (Referring to the quasi-cartoon image accompanying this post on the front page of Rodney Hide in a Nazi salute holding the decapitated head of Heather Roy as a play on the ACT slogan “the guts to do what’s right”).

    • lprent 18.1
      23 August 2010 at 7:37 am

      Don’t know about the other authors – but I was highly pissed off when I had a read around the right blogs this weekend.

      The puerile jerk-offs were doing a snigger session around Heather Roy. There were serious undertones of “just a woman”, “under the influence of”, and other such lines.

      It is pretty clear this is coming directly from Hide. As someone else commented, that type of innuendo campaign was his trademark in the past, and it looks like he maintains the skills. This is about the grubbiest most disgusting level of politics there is – tabloid leaking of details of peoples personal lives for the titillation of the prurient is a tactic that should have died with Muldoon.

      I think that the image is entirely appropriate. But at least one other feels the same way I do – Eddie put that image on that post.

      I must find an even more appropriate image for the idiot reporters and editors at the HoS.

      • Anne 18.1.1
        23 August 2010 at 11:17 am

        “Commenting on innuendo about her friendship with Dr Ewing-Jarvie, Mrs Roy told the Herald in a statement: “I am not and never have had an inappropriate relationship (affair) with Simon Ewing-Jarvie.

        By Audrey Young”

        Seems she visited Ewing-Jarvie to express her ‘disappointment” at his leaking the documents.

        Don’t be fooled. The innuendo would have come from Hide in the first instance.

  19. James Barber 19
    23 August 2010 at 10:56 am

    “this isn’t Whaleoil and adults’ personal lives are their own.” But for all those who haven’t heard already the Standard is also mentioning this and has a link to the story…

    • Bright Red 19.1
      23 August 2010 at 10:59 am

      yeah, it’s the Standard’s fault for linking to a story in an obsecure provincial paper called the Herald

  20. aj 20
    23 August 2010 at 11:45 am

    Doesn’t anyone think this was a bit of a coincidence?

    “The Security Intelligence Service withheld security clearance for Simon Ewing-Jarvie, a former New Zealand Army lieutenant colonel, shortly before he took part in an Act Party insurrection”

  21. smhead 21
    23 August 2010 at 2:30 pm

    Course labour guys never get involve in dirty politics. Trevor mallard has never brought personal lives into the political sphere oh no. Or how about Phil Goff when he was struggling for coverage, decided to try and pretend that labour activist worth was sleazing on had no connection to labour.

    Why is this a NACT smear? Can’t see any National hand in discrediting roy, only Act people doing it. It is like blaming the Greens for all the dirt hodgson mallard and goff throw around.

    • lprent 21.1
      23 August 2010 at 2:43 pm

      Why is this a NACT smear? Can’t see any National hand in discrediting roy…

      Go and read Kiwiblog again. DPF is heavily associated with National at a financial level to the point you can view him as being utterly beholden to them. I tend to view it as being a a National party organ…

      In his usual style, he attempts to keep his hands ‘clean’ by dogwhistling like crazy towards Whale’s site and the HoS. This is a tactic he has used before to push a story towards the mainstream media. If it doesn’t work he pushes it all off to the nutters. If it does then he climbs on board saying how bad it is, but it is now a ‘news’ story. Later his puppet masters do the same.

      This has National written all over it in that we’ve seem this plausible deniability scam before from both National and DPF. Both have proven in the past to be just despicable when it comes to trashing peoples reputations for their political gain….

      • smhead 21.1.1
        23 August 2010 at 3:54 pm

        “Both have proven in the past to be just despicable when it comes to trashing peoples reputations for their political gain .”

        Oh yeah like how you guys tried to trash key’s reputation last election for labour’s political gain. Or how labour hung chris out to dry as soon as defending him became a bit hard. or how nobody defends tizard any more because her main protector is gone and tizard doesn’t fit goff’s image. or the brash affair fiasco. oh yeah you guys on the left are just perfect.

        the only guys who can hold their heads up high for not getting personal is the greens and maybe dunne. the rest of you are all rolling in it when you can get points off it.

        • lprent 21.1.1.1
          23 August 2010 at 4:52 pm

          Who are you talking about? Brash was prior to the Standard being created?

          As far as I remember we looked at legitimate political questions on John Key, like

          1. what were his true policies past all of the spin.. Looks like he didn’t have much apart from a cycleway?
          2. what investments did he have and would those affect policy..
          3. what were his previous working practices in other jobs (pretty piss poor generally).

          We didn’t snuffle around in peoples garbage looking for dirt like the private dicks following Helen and Peter around (never figured out if it was the Act party or National doing that). We don’t publish politically active people’s home addresses. We didn’t stake out peoples houses trying to find out who was in a relationship with whom. We didn’t wander around ….. anyway you get the pictures. The trashy behavior all seemed to come from the right.

          The main post on Chris was mine, which was done purely from the public available information at the time about the letter and its contents. We only mentioned some of the garbage floating around after it showed up in the media. I don’t think that we’ve mentioned Judith in the posts that I remember.

          We just don’t obsess on peoples private lives in the way that the wingnuts do. In fact we barely mention them – it isn’t relevant for policy directions… Whereas possible conflicts of interest are. In fact The Standard pretty much looks at sources of public information and has shunned practices designed to intrude into peoples private lives…. Now the arseholes like you seem to think that makes us unethical? I think that you have a very strange set of morals…

          Now you get the choice – show an example where we did anything else, apologize to the authors of the Standard, or go away permanently.

          • smhead 21.1.1.1.1
            24 August 2010 at 10:34 am

            sorry lprent I didn\’t mean the standard was digging dirt, I meant the left dig dirt as much as the right do and only the greens can hold their heads high for not getting personal. examples I gave were mallard hodgson and goff.

            • lprent 21.1.1.1.1.1
              24 August 2010 at 11:41 am

              Carefully worded ‘apology’. But close enough.

              Your ‘you guys’ wording was so loose that it could easily be construed as applying to The Standard authors – and that is something I take very seriously. The authors take considerable pains (with a few easily corrected exceptions) not to take the political dirt and smearing onto peoples families or private lives. Discussion on that topic usually constitutes the major points of discussion between authors and about the only thing that gets e-mail discussions flowing.

              The Standard authors do “dig dirt” when appropriate. Look at the post yesterday on the OIA on English, Power, and Key pushing sales of public assets. But it is in the public domain and is about questions of political attitudes and fitness to office.

              We don’t just smear using innuendo and dogwhistles (like Hide is pushing out through the tabloids and compliant bloggers like DPF). Hell the authors were even pretty careful during the sleaziness that was the Worth resignation.

    • Bright Red 21.2
      23 August 2010 at 2:56 pm

      smhead – i assume that since you think it’s wrong if trevor mallard does it, you think it’s wrong when NACT does it.

      • smhead 21.2.1
        23 August 2010 at 3:51 pm

        brightred I didn’t say I thought it was wrong to drag politicians personal lives into public, but if I had I would have said it is equally wrong for the left or right to do it. lprent that is bs.

        • Bright Red 21.2.1.1
          23 August 2010 at 4:04 pm

          no. you ran the ‘two wrongs, make a right’ argument.

          If you think what NAct is doing is wrong or OK it stands on its own merits and isn’t justified if others do or don’t do it too.

  22. HitchensFan 22
    24 August 2010 at 11:10 am

    check out the link at the second to last comment (from one “Peter Tashkoff”) on this post from the Sewer. Makes for an interesting read!

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/08/roy_on_ewing-jarvie.html#comments

    Captcha: Nearer. Nearer the truth about the lovely Rodney?

Links to post