- Date published:
2:19 pm, August 16th, 2009 - 19 comments
Categories: uncategorized - Tags:
Reading the Herald on Sunday piece about this senior political figure in the domestic violence dispute, I’m surprised his party hasn’t made him step down yet.
I know that he has a right to fair process in the legal issue but from the facts that are public, it’s hard to see how he hasn’t crossed the moral line of unacceptable behaviour for a person in his position (you’re probably well aware of what that position is by now, especially with Whaleoil all but spelling it out, and if you don’t know, sorry, we can’t breach the suppression order). Slashed tyres, physical attacks and intimidation, an affair with a “politician” (which I guess means an MP) while the wife was away nursing her sick father, allegations of spying with video cameras, bodyguards, one with a conviction for failing to provide the necessities of life to a child … it’s all a pretty sleazy picture.
I would have thought that the party leader would have moved rapidly to a) establish the facts b) distance the party from this time-bomb, especially given recent events. And frankly, I would encourage the leader to do that because I don’t want to see more of the limited space in our national media that is set aside for politics taken up with sleaze, rather than substantive issues.
I don’t agree with the Herald on Sunday’s speculation that other parties might use parliamentary privilege to attack on this in Parliament next week. There’s no mileage for other parties in getting involved. But I do think that unless it is nipped in the bud the issue of the fitness of this man to hold a senior position in a political party will fester and, when everything does get out in the open, it will be a needlessly large distraction from the important issues (unemployment, climate change, the reinflating housing bubble etc) that we urgently need to be debating in this country.
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]
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]
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!
Screw you, micky. This woman is alleging serious shit against her own husband so stow the cheap misogyny.
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.
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.
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?
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]
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)
Can I say its not the Green party ?
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?
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.
Rex -crminal court needs evidence while the Family Court just needs hearsay.
And only since May has any Family Court proceedings been allowed to be publicised.
Botox has a lot to be responsible for
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.
I think the possible headline mentioned in Whaleoil
“Sex, Lies and Slashed Tyres” gives it a memorable spin
Ooops… Whale oil has gone into damage control!!!
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.
H.O.S breached suppression orders in this article. They are not supposed to refer to the marital status of either party.