- Date published:
9:31 am, September 15th, 2019 - 100 comments
Categories: jacinda ardern, labour, Media, national, same old national, spin, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, uncategorized - Tags: Donghua Liu, jami-lee ross, mike sabin, richard worth
Apologies for not posting much lately. I am involved in an Auckland Council campaign and it is a sprint marathon. The goals are huge, do we leave the future of the country’s biggest city in the hands of some earnest marginalists or does Auckland kick on.
Thanks to the Super City reforms my comrade Shane Henderson and I have ward that is 50% bigger than Dunedin, bigger than Hamilton and significantly bigger than Tauranga. It is the size of two and a half Parliamentary electorates.
And these campaigns are important.
Because if Auckland does not manage to become carbon neutral then the country will not either. And for our collective future we have to achieve this.
The recent media onslaught has been depressing. There is a strong sense of camaraderie amongst all Labour members and although I don’t believe that I have ever met the complainants I feel very deflated that they have had to endure what has happened to them.
I also have a great deal of sympathy for New Zealand Council members. Of course the alleged assailant’s employment rights had to be respected, after all this is the Labour Party. And the first thing I was taught in Law School was that people are innocent until proven guilty.
I was going to keep out of this issue but recent media comments have persuaded me to do the opposite.
My twitter feed is being bombarded with tweets from the right and from shock jock media sorts claiming that Jacinda Ardern should resign.
There was Duncan Garner’s claim that Jacinda Ardern could be forced to resign over the staffer sexual assault allegation.
This brought back rather bad memories, because in 2014 another right wing reporter said basically the same thing about David Cunliffe. In fact the language was very similar. Back then John Armstrong said that Cunliffe’s resignation may be in order because his denial that he assisted Donghua Liu’s immigration application may have been wrong.
It ended up that Cunliffe did not provide assistance to Liu and National was the party that actually received a donation from Donghu Liu and my conclusion was that New Zealand was essentially played. That fiasco could have cost Labour the 2014 election.
And the media surrounding this story shows that there are two starkly different approaches to politics practised by the major parties.
I wrote this in February this year:
If you want to understand the difference between the two major parties how about this? Last year Jacinda Ardern instructed her ministers to make no comment about Jami-Lee Ross’s problems or National’s predicament.
From Mitchell Alexander at Newshub:
“Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern directed her Government ministers not to comment on Jami-Lee Ross and his relationship with the National Party, Newshub can reveal.
If they did talk, they needed to show compassion and she even provided talking points instructing them what to say.
An email from the Prime Minister’s office was sent to other ministers’ offices on October 16 last year, which included a proposed response if they were asked by media about the issues surrounding Mr Ross.
Ministers were told to say, “These are issues for the National Party caucus. There’s always some concerns when there’s a human side to these situations.”
And this was not a one off:
“A second email was sent on November 5 with another proposed response which included: “This is the National Party’s business.”
That was the same day a new tape was leaked to The AM Show which revealed a conversation between Mr Bridges, deputy leader Paula Bennett and Mr Ross.”
Think back to the last Government where the well placed leak and the abuse of official information was a prominent feature.
There have been so many coverups practised over the years by National that the claims of a coverup is as fine an example of hypocrisy as you will ever experience. Think back to Richard Worth and what was it that he did which so incensed the Malaysian Government, or Mike Sabin whose activities Cameron Slater said were almost too horrible for words, or the police investigation into Todd Barclay and Bill English’s mischaracterisation of the truth relating to his police statement, or the complaints by four women against Jami-Lee Ross’s behaviour.
These were not the actions of ordinary members of the party. In each case they were caucus members directly answerable to the party leader. This rather stark difference appears to have been overlooked, perhaps intentionally so, by those who are braying the loudest.
Of course Paula Bennett is going to try and keep this current issue alive. National is that desperate to regain power that it will do anything to achieve this goal.
And its cheerleaders are in full voice about the issue.
They really do have two standards when it comes to ethics. One demanding complete perfection. And one allowing anything to go on as long as it is not discovered.
National has typically overcooked its approach. I trust the good people of Aotearoa New Zealand to see that Jacinda Ardern and this Government is doing its best to change the way that politics is practised. For the better.
The trouble with them is that they would stop at nothing to get their hands on a solid gold toilet fortheir own. The UK needs to look no further than the Gnats for the perps. Now all they want is the Seat of Government. Labour MPs are sitting ducks!
Keep clinging the life raft that National did it too.
The sooner all parties acknowledge that rape culture is alive and well in their organisations, and that it’s not ok just because it exists elsewhere, the better.
in fact, the first organisation to work through and remove it will find themselves in a paramount position.
Then we won’t hear from reporters of the “stomach-churning” reports coming though of what other young labour members suffered
[lprent: Ok – so you’re simply a lynch mob member. I’ll bet that you just love hunting the runaway slaves as well.
I’ll give you a hint why. Read the post – natural justice cuts both ways. As far as I can see you appear to have just paraphrased almost exactly the mantra of the KKK justifying the good ole boys hanging uppity ex-slaves.
I’m not that interested in having moronic filth like you on my server. But I guess I do have to provide (under principles of natural justice) some time to see if there is a human being beneath that ignorant bile. But really I think that you appear to just be a arsehole and a troll.
Banned for a week for advocating a hanging tree and swift justice. ]
"stomach churling" nice dead cat!!!!
I agree there's too much whataboutism in many pundits comments. It seems to be all about protecting the party instead of caring for the victims.
Getting Paula to tell the world is 'caring' ?
When Paula was telling the world on JLR and his havoc he caused with women, an MP, gallery journalist, others were in Bridges 'leaders office' was that caring for them.
Recordings revealed Paula was all in for a cover up before she wasnt.
The two are not mutually exclusive. That said, it is generally easier to care for (or attack) a known person with a name and a face whom you might feel some kind of relation (similarity, kinship) to if not empathy for than to do this with a faceless nameless person. It is actually basic psychology at work. In general, the further away from your bed, the less you care.
If you read my post you will see that I am stating that National is in a class of its own in the way it hides news and in the way that it seeks political points from issues when labour is involved. There are rather stark differences.
And they are brazen about it: https://twitter.com/Naly_D/status/1172788449323053056
Heh. Sabotage job?
'If I can't be leader neither can she'
Playing the tit for tat card I see. There is only one issue on the table here i.e the appalling treatment of the victims which no one in the Labour Party is prepared to take responsibility for. The answer seems to be another inquiry with terms of reference so narrow that no one will be held to account
Jacinda has apologised, there have been 2 resignations, there is a review underway. But keep spinning those attack lines and try to make political mileage out of some poor young woman’s suffering.
Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Oh dear, A Five O'Clock news item would appear to turn this whole nasty episode on its head. The antics of the Gnats, and the appalling Paula Bennett are straight from the Crosby-Textor manual. Throw mud and innuendo as quickly and widely as you can in the sure knowledge that people like you Michael, clearly a National troll, will assist in the fertilisation with glee and vigour. You couldn't even wait for the result of the inquiry to make your assertions. One member of the Labour committee who was involved in the initial "hearing" has stated quite clearly that there was no mention of any sexual harassment. I am sure that Bennett will offer no explanation – she has already said that she could see no need to apologise if she is proven to be out of order- which is par for the course for her and her ilk.
yes you right mickey stark differences but i am expecting NZ first to do a lot of the dirty work hopefully Winnys leg is better so him and his party can put the boot into national they are the best at doing it. And they national need to be reminded of all their own rubbish sleeping with one another sending kill yourself texts, spying on staff, abusing power. Now labour need to stop thinking national will worry about ethical issues when they need to remember they don't have any ethics or morals and they are not principled people either we only have to look at soimons grovelling to the Chinese for what ?
To I prent .
Arseholes are actually necessary and useful.
Not sure about climaction.
a week when the arsehole goes on strike is a bad week — couldn't say the same for Climaction
It's amazing, and I am speaking facetiously here in regards to the mainstream NZ media, that there was not even a fuss made by the media(that are quite obviously so into the NZ National Party pocket to the point of complete darkness)when John Key was chasing ponytails on especially young human females.
And hardly a fuss from the mainstream NZ media in regards to Paul Foster Bell’s workplace bullying. And hardly a fuss again from the mainstream NZ media when Aaron Gilmore was bullying a waiter.
But the lack of a voice of condemnation on John Key's antics reminds me of the time in the early 80s when Rob Muldoon was doing things that the media even back then were not even interested in or rather allowed to make public news eg his extra-marital affairs. These things were or more likely quickly forgotten by the current mainstream NZ media and of course the current batch of National Party politicians.
And so whilst National and especially the hypocritical Paula Bennett(can we remind her of her hatred towards National in the 90s)is trying to paint themselves as being oh so perfect they need to cast a stone in their very own direction before casting a stone in another direction. They are not perfect but right now they are trying to make out they are such perfection that they sit right beside the Great Spirit. Oh to have such an arrogance and hypocrisy. It must be so over-whelming for Bennett and Co.
"Rob Muldoon was doing things that the media even back then were not even interested in or rather allowed to make public news eg his extra-marital affairs"
Have you any evidence at all for this claim? No? Thought not.
One of the TV networks, TV3 if my memory is correct, made an attempt to find any of these rumoured paramours of Muldoon. They found none.
Now put up or shut up about someone who, now dead, has no chance to defend himself. Who were these lovers and what evidence do you have?
As the daughter of one of the said media the evidence of extra martial affairs was fairly blatant. If TV3 couldn't find evidence I would suggest that they were not looking hard. There were at least two female journalists which is why their fellow journalists didn't look too hard. He never minded people knowing as he had a fairly big ego, but in the same way JFK, John Major was not sprung to the public as journos did not see this as news. The change in culture was Bill Clinton when political rivals weaponised extra martial affairs.
…extra 'martial' affairs twice? It seems like the spelling has got into youyr fingers, from experience you will have to retrain them.
Muldoon wielded power like no other PM. He managed to get then Police Commissioner Burnside to tell the then Minister of Police 5 November 1976 that what was in a police file differed to what Moyle said in the house on 4 November 1976.
So the then Minister of Police could report back to Muldoon. When there are two versions which come out of an MPs mouth one is only correct. The unfortunate thing is that no crime had been committed by Moyle other than misleading the house.
The way I saw it Muldoon put Burnside in an untenable position.
In December 1976 a white wash inquiry occurred led by Sir Alfred North which took less than a month and Moyle was not allowed legal representation. Part of the inquiry was released in April 1978 but the full police evidence was locked up for 25 years and to date it has not been released.
Did Burnside criticise Muldoon for interfering in the day to day running of the police in the full police evidence?
I am not defending Muldoon as a Prime Minister.
I thought he was a dreadful example of the genre.
I was commenting only about the accusations of extra-marital affairs. As far as I ever saw he was faithful to Thea throughout their marriage.
I did notice that your comment was in relation to his sex life.
There cannot be a structure in parliament which is like a dilapidated lean to on the brink of collapsing when it comes to intimidation, sexual harassment, bullying or physical or sexual assault.
Sadly you are suggesting that there has never been a Parliament of which you approve. They all have such a structure of this kind, although there are degrees of seriousness.
Do you not remember the Labour Government's attitude to Don Brash? When a sniggering Trevor Mallard started going on about Don Brash having had an affair? While the PM sat there with a bitter little sneer on sour face and positively jiggled in her seat with glee? That was the same Trevor of course who had just broken up with his wife over his affairs and had been pleading with the Press Gallery not to mention his marriage collapse.
Then as now , the Gallery wont cover 'affairs' of Mps. Absence didnt mean it didnt happen…Don Brash Rodney Hide are proof of that was brushed over
Are you that concerned about Mallards sledging of Brash, but have cotton wool in your ears about the master diverter and sledger John Key
"Among the various controversies to dog Don Brash's political career was the revelation of an affair which led to the end of his second marriage. In this extract from his newly published autobiography, Brash opens up about both of his failed marriages and the temptation of adultery."
" but have cotton wool in your ears ".
I don't think I have cotton wool in my ears. However the subject was extra-marital affairs and I cannot remember Key ever bringing that subject up about any member of an Opposition Party during his time as PM. Perhaps he did, but I can't think of one.
However you did see that I said that none of our Parliaments have been blameless. It is a bear-pit and to survive there you need a hide like a Rhinoceros. I could never have taken that job up. That wasn't the only reason of course. I would never have been a good MP. Mind you being able to admit that fact would pretty much debar me. Hardly any of them, and particularly those who rise to senior Cabinet ranks have any recognition of their own weaknesses do they? I mean to say. Look at Twyford. Has the man no shame?
"The child she never had."
plus one of his notorious sledges.
Plus of a different situation, what led to the punch up between Mallard and Henare
"The incident came after Mr Henare had goaded Mr Mallard in the House over his personal life. The minister has recently separated from his wife."
And you want a ‘sneer’ -take a good look at this one from Key
I don't say that Key was as pure as the driven slush. He could be quite as forceful in the House as anyone. However none of your examples have anything to do with what I said.
It wasn't Key who described Hughes as the child Clark never had. It was Hughes himself.
The sledge may be objectionable but it has absolutely nothing to do with affairs by a married MP.
If anyone said a slur it was Henare. It wasn't Key. I say "if anyone" because Henare always denied making any such slur.
The last clip has nothing to do with any extra-marital affair. It was Mallard refusing to follow the Speakers requirement to withdraw and apologise. Mallard of course does exactly the same thing to other MPs who behave as he does.
As I say, I cannot think of any occasion when Key claimed extra-marital affairs by anyone in the Opposition.
Lockwood Smith was one of the best speakers. Mallard could learn a thing or two from him
TV3 wasn't established until November 1989, when Muldoon was just a fading member of the opposition.
JustMe mentions alleged events in "the early 80s" so your memory is very unlikely to be correct.
No, the program was only made after Muldoon had died. That was in August 1992 so it could have been TV3. I’m not certain though. You can safely make any claims at all about a dead person because the assumption is that you cannot libel a corpse. If they had run the program while he was still alive he probably would have sued. He was like Lange, and to a lesser extent Peters, in that respect wasn't he.
They wouldn't give a damn about what it was like for his widow of course.
Karl du Fresne, who is no friend of Labour, claims it was common knowledge that Muldoon had extra marital affairs.
The Herald reckons Muldoon had a mistress for more than a decade.
Muldoon's Crown Limo was repeatedly seen dashing through Seatoun Tunnel after midnight – repeatedly. I know – I lived in Strathmore Park then & would be out jogging through the tunnel and around the bays most nights around midnight. Case closed?
I agree that the National Party has no right to crow here. However I am very disappointed with the Labour Party. Mallard indicated at the time that he thought it was rape that was being talked about. So they can hardly claim that they were not aware of the seriousness.
Absolutely I think that the Labour Party is not in a position to handle claims of sexual abuse. I would have thought they would have met the woman concerned and discussed her options, and whether they should support her going to the police.
I am keenly waiting for the investigation to find out how they could have not bothered to record what she said at the hearing.
"he thought it was rape that was being talked about."
You are confused about a un- connected situation in parliament – they were non party staff.
Another difference for that, was Soper seemed driven to give ‘the mans story’
Yeah, Labour have fucked this up. No argument. And sexual predators should be hauled over the coals, no matter which side of the political spectrum they favour. Once again, no argument. But this whole thing reeks.
Of all the people on God's green earth to take your allegations of sexual predation to, why would any sane human choose Paula Bennett? Bennett exudes as much human warmth as the iceberg that sank the Titanic and has form for being opportunistic, hypocritical and vindictive. I wouldn't go to Bennett if I were on fire and being attacked by a swarm of angry bees. She is literally the last person I would consider asking for assistance. It's like going to Gerry Brownlee for help losing weight. Or John Key for advice on telling the truth.
This is a serious issue that has morphed into little more than a stick with which to beat the government, and Bennett is wielding it with considerable relish. Why not go to one of the Green MPs? James Shaw? Marama Davidson? Or even NZ First's Tracey Martin? Why would your first port of call after failing to have your concerns seriously addressed by the Labour Party, be those diametrically opposed, and Bennett in particular? I genuinely can't get my head around that.
Jacinda is the current government's best weapon and National and their MSM apologists are prepared to move heaven and earth to put her out of commission via weaponised trauma. John Key gets handsy on multiple occasions with a waitress and it's all a bit of harmless japery. "Here's a couple of bottles of plonk, love. No hard feelings, eh?" The Labour Party make a complete dog's breakfast of handling some fairly awful allegations of sexual assault, and Jacinda's suddenly the anti-Christ. At worst, she's guilty of being naive and of trusting minions who obviously chose to put their political affiliations before the welfare of the victims.
The circus of hypocritical righteous indignation this entire business has become makes me ill, and I can only imagine the effect it's having on those directly involved.
I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that anyone involved with the Labour Party (or anyone with a modicum of sense for that matter) would determine that Paula Bennet was a suitable champion to approach regardless of what had occurred.
So agree. Given her(Paula Bennett's)track record of breaching the right to privacy of beneficiaries that were critical of her beloved NZ National party I sure as Hell wouldn't approach her on even as to how to fry eggs.
roblogic post a tweet (plus good image) on the post "Accused Labour staffer….." late last night. Last comment – 24.
It's relevant to your comment but since the format change I can't link to past comments. Perhaps you could do the link Pat.
Summary: it appears Paula Bennett has not actually met any of the complainants.
Is that the link you want Anne? Why it lets me post a link when you can't is beyond me.
By the way, what evidence do you have that none of them met Bennett? She certainly said that some at least had come to her.
[lprent: There is a bug in the code at present that means that pasting a raw link in the site in the traditional raw html way causes an issue. It is related to the OE embed system so I have a trade off between breaking different subsystems. Won’t get fixed until I free some time to fix it.
Flaunting your minimal expertise in technical techniques to someone who is likely to be a technically less literate than your standards is an unwelcome behaviour. If you can’t be bothered to explain your technique, then it’d be advisable to not snipe on it. After all imagine how I could use this opportunity to do the same to you and your comments.
Don’t tempt me. ]
Anne and I had a discussion on this matter on Friday. At the time I asked whether she could link to a comment instead of the whole post and I told her what I did when she said it didn't work. In other words I did explain what I was doing in case it was different to what she had done. I also commented then, as now, that I didn't see why it should work for me and not her. I just assumed that it was a bug in the code, as you have now confirmed.
I never claimed then, and don't claim now any particular expertise. I gave up programming about 30 years ago. I found more interesting things to spend my time on.
In any case I am hardly flaunting my knowledge. She asked whether someone could post the link and I was simply obliging.
Our discussion the other day was here.
If you want to make rude remarks about my remaining, and fast fading, programming skills go ahead. I am sure I would agree with most of them. I will continue with my practice of not being too harsh on some of the comments on Economics by some of the contributors to this site though. I am far to nice to do such a thing, regardless of the temptation.
Noted, although it wasn’t directed at me. FWIW, to me it also came across as sniping particularly when seen together with your comment @ 3.1. In fact, I had written a long and detailed Moderation Note for you @ 5.2.1 but Lynn beat me to it and I deleted it 🙂
"came across as sniping".
Yeah, well it wasn't intended to be. It wasn't suggesting that Anne's actions were deficient in some way. It was that there is probably a bug in the software that stops her doing something it allows me to do.
If Anne takes it as sniping in some way I am sorry. It is really just a continuation of a little discussion we had the other day, which I think, looking at the link to that discussion, should confirm.
All good. Anne didn’t, AFAIK, but Lynn and I did. Luckily, Lynn wasn’t sufficiently tempted and I’m fudge 😉
Now you are really buttering me up. I love fudge.
Correction. That seems a better description that what I first typed.
No I didn't take it as sniping due to previous conversation we had.
Thank you Anne.
Look at the dates Pat:
RNZ link 8th August. 5 weeks ago.
Was Bennett a wee bit lax with the truth at that stage? Could have been. We don't know.
News hub link 10th Sept.
The complainants had assumed Ardern knew about the sexual incidents. She didn't. Some people in their lack of wisdom omitted to tell her. They may have thought it was in her best interest not to know. They were wrong.
The tweet was 4 days later- last night 14th Sept. I'm assuming new information has come to light but it has still to be confirmed as correct of course.
That is the point….has Bennet been economical with the truth?…have the media been bluffed?…to my mind it dosnt pass the sniff test.
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark
Apols Pat. I umm… misinterpreted. The current in-word for stuffing up.
Notice the wording
"National deputy Paula Bennett claims a current Beehive staffer has taken the "extraordinary step" of personally approaching her to protest Labour's handling of her complaint about bullying and sexual harassment."
The sexual assault claim wasnt made by a 'beehive staffer ' she was a party volunteer.
And Arderns description
“We’ve been advised that none of the people who made a complaint to the Labour Party about a Labour member currently work in any part of Parliament,” a statement said.
The bullying and harassment claims which involved around 8-10 people including a male who claims an assault, seem believable but havent been detailed, but were fully investigated as far as Im aware.
These earlier incidents , which included the woman who later attended a social event at some ones home where a sexual assault was described.
The policy after the Youth Camp was the party 'couldnt and wouldnt' investigate sexual assault- as that was the job of the police. But as has been reported the sexual assault woman didnt want that option.
Apart from listening to her story there doesnt seem to be a pathway to resolution ( where someone is 'punished') that doesnt involve an 'investigation'
Anne, I wrote how to work around the link issue here,
Taken a copy. Thanks weka.
Kia ora Anne, the original tweet, and another. While these allegations are serious, Paula’s just not reliable. Remember her doxxing beneficiaries and evicting 800+ state house tenanats during the fake meth panic. She loves this kind of shit.
Bennett is exploiting the serious situation of sexual assault for her own means.
Anyone who has dropped the ball and I do not care what your political affiliations are, you need to own up. Also you need to recognise that you are having a direct affect on the claimants. Possibly it is worse for the claimaints than the actual intimidation, sexual harassment or sexual assault.
I have been there myself over having dated the cop involved with the Moyle incident when I was age 16. I was told about the incident in March 1976 in my bedroom at the then police barracks. Yes the cop committed perjury. I do have my own view about the position the cop found himself in.
I had to eventually pull back/retreat to preserve myself mentally. The police were so fucking useless, so were the MPs I approached. I am about to have my last go at it as I am now 60.
I need a cup of tea to calm down.
Got in one. An unprincipled woman who had no compunction in leaking confidential details of "victims" when it suited her.
Good luck with your campaign Mickey. I hope it's a clean sweep for Labour in the Waitakere ranges ward. I'm campaigning hard in the South. When I knock on the doors absolutely no one brings up the media shit storm. It's all about rubbish traffic and flooding issues. Let's get back to the basics and dont let the media set the agenda.
Any queries about measels ?
Discussed measles with a couple of people who couldn't understand why people didn't vaccinate
I see, nothing to be concerned about that either. Now back to the big issues of rubbish and traffic.
False equivalence here Rob sorry. People aren't bothered by the media made up issue. It doesn't impact on their lives
Some people gave brought up measles and yes it does impact on their lives
Can rats get measles? Asking for a friend in Titirangi.. 🙂
Yes mickey good luck from us too.
Good on you TFG
The character assassination by National and its poodles in the media of Jacinda Ardern is in full swing. However, I see flying stones, shattered glasshouses and a very singed coiffure from an enormous backfire.
MPs such as Peter Dunne should be very circumspect commenting on this topic, there's an unwritten rule that their private lives shouldn't be media fodder. A lot goes on that we don't hear about – or necessarily want to. We just want good governance.
Do some posts about your campaign issues Mickey.
The west should see your opinions and policies here.
Some big lies and omissions from Andrea Vance in a story where she pretends to give the facts
"" The party refused to release 'the findings" of lawyer Maria Austen (formerly Berryman) who was asked to look into Labour's handling of sexual assault claims made at a summer youth camp."
Thats a lie from Vance.
As Newshub said at the time
"Labour also released recommendations last year from a review launched to investigate the culture of Young Labour camps after allegations of sexual assault arose.
Labour Party President Nigel Haworth said the party released all the recommendations from the inquiry into the summer camp in full, but not the full report. "
Recommendations ARE Findings . They didnt release the entire report but Vance never said that anything at all was released.
And the Partys reasons
"We couldn't release the full text of the report due to the confidentiality requirements of those involved and because the legal case is still before the courts."
Jacinda should ignore the constant ‘batter’ now becoming ‘raw accusations’ from Paula and her ‘herd’ of right wingers and their media who are sending out all the emotional abuse at her, and consider legal action..
We feel National and media are really attempting to exact a form of abusive “emotional rape” upon her now.
Jacinda may best now consider seeking legal advice on them attempting “character assassination” upon her with their accusations unfounded as they are.
All these hacks posing as investigative journalists remind me of a cartoon I saw years ago and have never forgotten. It was two vultures sitting on a branch. One said to the other 'patience be damned, let's go and kill something'. That's what I think is happening when everyday another vulture joins the slow deliberate torment and attempt of the death of Jacinda as our much loved Prime Minister. It's all very chilling. What's worrying is all these slimy slugs have been around for so long and show no sign of buggering off. On a slow and lazy wicket aren't they. Time they were bowled out.
What is it that Bennett is suppose to be doing?
To have a voice for the complainants so that they can be heard. Instead Bennett makes what did the PM know and what did the PM not know be the issue?
The Labour Council who heard from the complainants seem to be so confused in what their role was.
1. We are here to take a complaint.
2. We are unable to deal with a sexual complaint.
Were I a complainant I would be wondering what the point in being there was.
I do know this, that there needed to be someone there independently to make sure that the complainants were not being dismissed. The complainants also needed their own legal advisor in that room.
Perhaps PM Ardern could appoint a woman to deal with all the matters involving the sexual assault, and I think a QC has been found. Then she should direct all the questions to her so she can get on with being the Prime Minister not the go-to Minister for Everything.
Bennett doesn't want justice for the victim(s), she just wants Labour heads on a pike.
Really, double standards, journalism today is biased and damaging, not just you and not on one side either, but how about honesty and integrity over your person agenda and biases. All of you. You damage lives with your I I I attitude to journalism
I think u r a disaster look in mirror u don't see a pm
Yes there needed to be a complaint given to the police then, and they would have been given legal redress but it looks fishy that they decided to go gangbusters to the media for help.
We know that the media is corrupted with bias and agendas so why go there.
Now there is an investigation going on we shall see.
If or when a complaint of sexual assault is given to the police, it is not for anyone else to decide.
I would say that the complainants were done a disservice by the Labour Council. As awful as it is, the Labour Council are not the police and cannot conduct themselves in such a way when it comes to a legal matter.
The media are not the ideal place to go to either as this just stirs up the Beehive.
On the Nation Bennett recommended the names of some sympathetic cops the complainants could go to. Every cop should do no harm when a person raises a complaint of sexual assault. The ambulance at the bottom of the cliff is the ACC sensitive claims. That organisation has cheated sexual abuse survivors for years.
So where do the complaints go to for justice?
So where do the complainants go to for justice?
Timed out to do a correct.
The thing is that Labour is in government now so the spotlight is on them at the moment.
The thing about politicians is that they draught the legislation they expect the rest of us to follow. So they should be paragons of virtue in exemplifying how it should be done.
In this case Labour has a policy that deals with this precise issue. All they needed to do was follow it. The fact they knew what should be done but didn’t do it makes the issue much worse.
I will read it.
Seems to me what they do something like that . This policy is in effect from Jul 2019 so seems to predate all this stuff.
It doesnt cover sexual assault but:
8.4 Complaints that allege a criminal offence should be reported to the Police or other agency with the prior consent of the complainant.
8.5 The Party will not inform the parents of young people aged 15 or over regarding any allegations made by that young person without that person’s prior consent.
Reads like an excellent Policy. It is possible that even though this has recently been ratified, it would have been the sort of thing that a Council would have done anyway.
Note that sexual harassment has a repetition element to it as opposed to a one off.
Rather muddled reasoning there. There is a Labour government, but the Labour party is not synonymous with the government. Nor is legislation the exclusive province of the Labour-led government, which is the executive, but rather that of parliament, and in any case, it hasn't been established here that any politician has broken the law. It's very hard to see any real connection between these statements and your substantive assertion about Labour's policy, and it consequently looks as though you're just sort of flailing about with some half-baked values, to fudge the impression of a principled point.
Not muddled at all. I think the distinction between the two is technical at best, as confirmed by this article by Vance which names both Ardern and Davis as members of the governing board. https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/115746984/who-knew-what-and-when-on-labour-abuse-scandal
According to this article this board was involved in the complaint process. But according to Vance neither Ardern or Davis had responded to questions about knowledge around the issue that they might have ascertained from the board.
It would be interesting to see the minutes of who attended relevant meetings and who was cc’d in.
A bit of a non-sequitur from your previous post. None of this newer comment would be at all different were Labour in opposition, and it has nothing to do with legislation. Labour also faced considerably more media scrutiny than National when in opposition over the previous decade, so I don't really see what you're driving at with either post, besides your speculation on how party policy was followed and who might have been at meetings.
Paula has a warm heart and is so keen to help the aggrieved. Huh? Did I just write that!
Anyway perhaps Paula might help us all by publishing their "Health and Safety" plan as claimed by Simon Bridges after he had fixed the complaints against Jamie Lee Ross within 24 hours or so Paula said.
True the 4 women complainants had to sign a Confidentially agreement to prevent any bad news getting out. That would have fixed it all.
The hard case people who frequented Paula's Napier Tattoo Club could describe her as the hardest case of all.
Paula has a warm heart and is so keen to help the aggrieved. Huh? Did I just write that!
Have a lie down and a cup of tea ianmac. I promise you will feel better afterwards.
All the Herald's brand ranter and racist names pop up to pronounce Ardern's brand done.
Also interesting that the article with the love headline for Muller on the Spinoff didn't carry a promoter declaration. Considering the heat the Nats got for their climate change work while he was in charge and how far back in the Nats pack he surely is…
This latest from the party who have a notable record of paying out people to disappear… or keep their mouths shut – courtesy of Paula Bennett;
If this campaign continues for much longer, I think it might be Paula Benefit who is the one who goes down in flames.
Here we go:
Anne. Hard to shrug and say that's just politics, in view of the current hypocrisy!!!
And by the way what is the truth about whether or not Bennett has actually met the complainants? If I was a complainant I would prefer to meet eyeball to eyeball to be able to assess if I was being used and abused or not.
I happened to bump into a reasonably high profile Labour Party member in a mall today and according to him… it is true she has not actually met any of the complainants. I will take his word for it unless it’s proven otherwise.
Paula probably got the info off the complainant's facebook page.
Thanks for sharing that Anne @ 184.108.40.206
In National's case, a double standard sounds like two too many.
The alleged sexual assault story is looking shaky.