Nip it in the bud

19 comments on “Nip it in the bud ”

• Comments are now closed

1. mickysavage 1

   16 August 2009 at 2:24 pm

   Wow another honeypot?

   Gee X is good. How did he manage to organise this?

   [sorry, we have to remove name, it gives away the party that the figure is from, which breaches the suppression order]
   • mickysavage 1.1

     16 August 2009 at 4:14 pm

     What the …

     [yeah, it’s dumb but we get some advice on it, that’s why we removed references in the other post to the party. M]
     • mickysavage 1.1.1

       16 August 2009 at 8:47 pm

       Yeah but it was to the leader of one of the parties from which the person was not from? There are plenty of parties left!
   • QoT 1.2

     16 August 2009 at 9:23 pm

     Screw you, micky. This woman is alleging serious shit against her own husband so stow the cheap misogyny.
     • gobsmacked 1.2.1

       16 August 2009 at 9:28 pm

       I assume he’s being heavily sarcastic about the “honeytrap”, QoT.

       I can’t really say any more without hinting at the political party involved. So, er, that’s all.
     • mickysavage 1.2.2

       16 August 2009 at 9:30 pm

       After what all the various wingnuts put Neelam Choudhery as well as the two beneficiaries who criticised National’s policies through you are accusing me of misogyny?

       I was making a joke. I was also trying to contrast the difference between left and right. The wingnuts continuously denigrated and criticised, I as a good leftie was trying to make a joke.
2. Ianmac 2

   16 August 2009 at 2:26 pm

   Innocent till proven guilty, but the more it goes on unknowing, the more it goes not knowing, the more I want to be knowing which is sort of what Pooh said. A sort of “Ha ha. I know a secret and I’m not telling!” I wonder which Party political animal this be?
3. RedLogix 3

   16 August 2009 at 2:58 pm

   New Zealanders love this sort of thing. Straight out of Shortland Street.

   X’s ratings will improve on the back of this.

   [sorry, we have to remove party name, it gives away the party that the figure is from, which breaches the suppression order]
4. george 4

   16 August 2009 at 3:47 pm

   The situation has gone too far.Why has this persons party left him in this position?For the good of all involved this should have been addressed way before all this.We all make bad calls but for a political party to not help a person in his position , calls into question their judgment and ability to help any person.I would hope that no party uses this in the house but i believe that the public will find out all the details of this case in time.I cannot see other parties treating this man or woman’s situation in the same way as national attacked others in similar situations in the not so distant past.(such as the worth affair)
5. Outofbed 5

   16 August 2009 at 4:36 pm

   Can I say its not the Green party ?
6. Rex Widerstrom 6

   16 August 2009 at 4:36 pm

   The justification for such a stifling level of suppression seems to be that this is a Family Court matter.

   Yet if even half the allegations against the man are true – wilful damage, assault, domestic violence, disturbing the peace are a few that spring to mind – I’d have thought our constabulary would be springing forth to lay charges.

   Those charges would then be heard in criminal court, where such a level of supression would be virtually unheard of.

   So why haven’t they? Or is it that they only reach for the tazers when it’s poor man in South Auckland kicking in his ex’s door?
   • IrishBill 6.1

     16 August 2009 at 6:29 pm

     I thought the same. I can only conclude that no criminal complaint has been made or if it has the suppression order has hit the courts first.
7. Gaint Mason Philly 7

   16 August 2009 at 4:43 pm

   Rex -crminal court needs evidence while the Family Court just needs hearsay.
   • ghostwhowalks 7.1

     16 August 2009 at 5:06 pm

     And only since May has any Family Court proceedings been allowed to be publicised.

     Botox has a lot to be responsible for
8. george 8

   16 August 2009 at 4:48 pm

   In these situations it is not for the protection of the alleged attacker but for the safety of the victim. The pressure from other parties (not political) with inside knowledge in this case will be extreme.It seems strange to me that the most rabid attacker in the political blogs (whale-oil) has waded into this one.
9. ghostwhowalks 9

   16 August 2009 at 5:01 pm

   I think the possible headline mentioned in Whaleoil

   “Sex, Lies and Slashed Tyres” gives it a memorable spin
10. Anne 10

    16 August 2009 at 9:19 pm

    Ooops… Whale oil has gone into damage control!!!
11. gobsmacked 11

    16 August 2009 at 9:37 pm

    I do sometimes wonder about the public interest value of name suppression.

    I knew nothing about this story before today, and have no access to insider gossip. But after reading the Herald article, and spending a couple of minutes on the net, I’ve seen enough to be pretty clear who this is about. I ain’t no Sherlock Holmes – it’s not hard to work out.

    Unfortunately I’ve also seen speculation naming people and parties who are definitely not involved. That’s the inevitable result of suppression.

    There is no protection for those people.
12. amanda 12

    16 August 2009 at 9:38 pm

    H.O.S breached suppression orders in this article. They are not supposed to refer to the marital status of either party.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS