Strong team?

Written By: - Date published: 7:32 am, July 21st, 2020 - 267 comments
Categories: election 2020, making shit up, national, same old national, spin, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags:

Yesterday this crazy election campaign became even crazier.

At 3 pm news broke that Andrew Falloon was standing down for mental health reasons.  The response by lefties on twitter was refreshing.  The general consensus was that he should be given space and there was hope that things worked out for him.

Te Reo Putake posted this post and concluded:

All the best to Andrew Falloon. I hope he finds nothing but kindness, positivity and practical support in the future.

But things quickly deteriorated.  At 5 pm Radio New Zealand announced that the cause of his depression was the drunken sending of inappropriate graphic material to a woman who was not his wife.  Then it became incendiary when it emerged that the woman was a teenager.

Things got worse and more bizarre.  Later last night the Herald posted:

The Herald understands that Falloon’s version of events is that he was at a party several weeks ago and briefly left his phone unattended – and at that time acquaintances used it to send the sexual image in question.

A claim that the dog ate your homework would normally attract more credibility.

National says it knew about the issue last Friday after Jacinda Ardern’s office did the very decent thing and with the consent of the complainant sent the allegation directly to Judith Collins’s office to deal with.  Shades of Andrew Little and his treatment of issues relating to Mike Sabin.

There was this attempt at a defence on behalf of the National Party.  I listened to it on the way home and found it very hard to suppress my laughter at the claims.  All of them.

When I have some time I might go through them in detail.

This is nothing but an abject disaster for the National Party and reinforces every single negative perception about them.  And it makes candidate and list selections even more fraught.

Judith is wanting to be leader of the country.  Her handling of this particular incident I am sure will persuade many swinging voters that she should never be trusted with the position.  Imagine wanting to try and spin that decidedly inappropriate behavior by a Member of Parliament was a case of mental illness.

This morning she has come out all tough on it and demanded that Falloon resign immediately.  This jarrs with her statement yesterday.  She also said that there is a second allegation of inappropriate behaviour that media have heard about.  Today will be an interesting day.

And why should the taxpayer continue his pay?  Most workers would be down the road if they faced similar allegations.

I used to be in awe at National’s discipline and unity and the way they managed to go through issues.  No longer.  This will further stall National’s omnishambles of a campaign and sap further support and confidence from them.

I hear that the makers of the thick of it are thinking of a spin off series involving the events within an opposition party and believe that the events this year in New Zealand involving the National Party will provide all the material they need.  But they have a problem.  There is probably more than enough material for a couple of seasons.

Update: Falloon has resigned.

https://twitter.com/Jasonwalls92/status/1285299029232906240

I wonder what persuaded him to go without a fight.

267 comments on “Strong team? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Dennis Frank 1
    21 July 2020 at 7:54 am

    I'm interested in why the police decided it didn't deserve prosecution. Is this a clue?

    Collins said the image was of a pornographic nature and not of a male. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12349538

    Media have referred to JC being responsible for producing the relevant legislation. Do you have a view on why it does not merit prosecution, MS? In her interviews this morning she was very firm about caring for the recipient of the image, so I expect that personal interest would have manifested in ensuring appropriate clauses in the law!

    The Herald report also makes it clear that Falloon told two different stories. Looks like the earlier version (friend did it while he was drunk) was fake, since he admitted to his leader that he sent it.

    • mickysavage 1.1
      21 July 2020 at 8:04 am

      Material has to be really offensive for it to be objectionable and illegal. The legal definition is complex but the basic principle is that “a publication is objectionable if it describes, depicts, expresses, or otherwise deals with matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty, or violence in such a manner that the availability of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public good”.

      • Nic the NZer 1.1.1
        21 July 2020 at 8:34 am

        Meaning the material would have to be subject to public censorship to begin with?

        • McFlock 1.1.1.1
          21 July 2020 at 2:23 pm

          Yes, but it might not have been formally classified beforehand.

          E.g. if it was a photo I took on my camera and sent to you, it might be "objectionable" but it hadn't been rated that at the time I sent it to you.

          But if my pic was no worse than anything you'd see in the movies, it wouldn't be legally "objectionable", but me sending it to you randomly would still be wrong.

          There are a few other legal possibilities though, like s112 of the telecommunications act:

          112 Misuse of telephone device

          (1)Every person commits an offence who, in using a telephone device, uses profane, indecent, or obscene language, or makes a suggestion of a profane, indecent, or obscene nature, with the intention of offending the recipient.

          (2)Every person commits an offence who—

          (a)uses, or causes or permits to be used, any telephone device for the purpose of disturbing, annoying, or irritating any person, whether by calling up without speech or by wantonly or maliciously transmitting communications or sounds, with the intention of offending the recipient; or

          (b)in using a telecommunications device, knowingly gives any fictitious order, instruction, or message.

          (3)Every person who commits an offence against subsection (1) or subsection (2) is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $2,000.

          • Nic the NZer 1.1.1.1.1
            21 July 2020 at 4:03 pm

            Cheers.

            Some of those section 2 things seem concerning for both trolls and moderators. I guess in practice the courts are likely to decide they don't apply to almost anything however.

            • McFlock 1.1.1.1.1.1
              21 July 2020 at 4:29 pm

              I might have overreached without reading the interpretation section:

              telephone device means any terminal device capable of being used for transmitting or receiving any communications over a network designed for the transmission of voice frequency communication

              I guess pics go over the data link, not the POTS link. So there might be a legal idea that a text/pxt app isn't the telephone device.

              • Nic the NZer …
                21 July 2020 at 4:43 pm

                If you know anything about computer networks then clearly thats a basically meaningless distinction.

                • McFlock …
                  21 July 2020 at 4:54 pm

                  From one perspective. But legal fictions are a thing, and if they decided the intent of the act was to stop people yelling abuse at specific people over a phone rather than posting bullshit on a blog, the courts might make that distinction.

                  • Nic the NZer …
                    21 July 2020 at 7:19 pm

                    Its pretty unimpressive from the legal fiction point of view. If I can read then it says you are not allowed to annoy someone using a device which *could* be used as a telephone. Hopefully there is also overarching legislation saying your always permitted to annoy someone in written form.

                    • McFlock …
                      21 July 2020 at 7:59 pm

                      There's also the issue of overlap with the HDCA looking at essentially the same problem in relation to blogs, but also cellphones.

                      I wouldn't want to be testing it without some actual professional legal research, anyhow.

    • Treetop 1.2
      21 July 2020 at 12:54 pm

      The 2001 ACC Act for a schedule 3 mental injury the Crimes Act 1961 is used. Possibly if no offence under the ACC Act no offence maybe seen to have occurred.

      I do hope that there is ACC cover for counselling even when there is no cover for the injury under schedule 3. ACC is a no fault scheme.

      There are a lot of fallings in the 2001 ACC Act when it comes to a sensitive claim. Historical sexual assault cases need additional legislation.

  2. observer 2
    21 July 2020 at 8:03 am

    When stories like this emerge, it's really important to take note of the difference between original evidence, and a version of the evidence, AKA spin.

    The evidence was given to Judith Collins' office on Friday. So they were in possession of the original correspondence (e-mail, presumably) from the woman's family to the PM's office.

    On Monday, National put out a statement saying Falloon would stand down, citing mental health. This was based on a version of events. Collins had no reason to accept that version, because she already had the e-mail. She knew.

    It was not a case of "must take MP at his word". She didn't need to. Today, the spin will be "Collins sacks Falloon, strong leader". But she is sacking him for reasons that she knew about before deliberately misleading the public yesterday.

    That is not strong leadership, at all.

  3. Stuart Munro 3
    21 July 2020 at 8:05 am

    These male mid-life crisies are pretty tragic for those involved I guess:

    What have I got to do to make you want me
    What have I got to do to be heard
    What do I say when it's all over?
    And sorry seems to be the hardest word (Bernie Taupin)

    Politics is only a complicating factor.

    • Sacha 3.1
      21 July 2020 at 8:10 am

      Please stop trying to minimise this.

      • Stuart Munro 3.1.1
        21 July 2020 at 8:48 am

        That's not actually what I'm doing – more looking into the pathology of National's culture. The dishonesty has become so ingrained that the party is no longer a vehicle for members to realise esteem and self-actualisation goals by designing policy in the public interest. And so they look for other things to fill the void of meaning.

        • Anne 3.1.1.1
          21 July 2020 at 10:13 am

          … dishonesty has become so ingrained that the party is no longer a vehicle for members to realise esteem and self-actualisation goals by designing policy in the public interest. And so they look for other things to fill the void of meaning.

          Spot on Stuart Munro.

          When this latest saga unfolded yesterday, I was reminded of a very old saying:

          "Idle hands are the devil's workshop."

          It dates back to the 12th century but is just as pertinent today.

          Dirty Politics began with Muldoon in the 1970s and it has been rearing its ugly head on and off ever since. Along the way many innocent people were deeply hurt by it and most of their stories never made it into the public arena.

          Now it is coming to a head and not before time.

          • Jilly Bee 3.1.1.1.1
            21 July 2020 at 4:56 pm

            'Dirty Politics began with Muldoon in the 1970s and it has been rearing its ugly head on and off ever since. Along the way many innocent people were deeply hurt by it and most of their stories never made it into the public arena.' I well recall that era Anne – I will never forget the odious Colin Moyle saga. I rather suspect that Colin (who is still alive) must be quietly chuckling to himself over what has been happening recently.

            • Anne 3.1.1.1.1.1
              21 July 2020 at 7:44 pm

              Colin Moyle was set up Jilly Bee. As a senior cabinet minister, he was working in his office one night in 1975 when a man rang him claiming to have documentation of fraudulent activity inside the Defence Force – something like that anyway. He arranged to meet Moyle that same evening [to hand over the documents] at a location which happened to be in a part of Wellington known to be frequented by homosexuals.

              No-one showed up. He was about to leave when the police came by and took him to the station for questioning. He didn't tell anyone the truth at the time and I can understand why. He knew they would not believe him.

              I know the identity of the person who made that hoax call. He was one of a group of 2 or possibly 3 people who committed a number of clandestine political hoaxes during the Muldoon years. They were never prosecuted even though I have good reason to believe their identities were known to the police.

            • Treetop 3.1.1.1.1.2
              21 July 2020 at 7:49 pm

              I am not as young as I used to be Jilly Bee, after the election I am going after the police for what they put me through over being told in March 1976 about the Moyle incident and really horrible comments from police. I dated the cop involved in the Moyle incident for the first 6 months in 1976, I was only 16 years old.

              My complaints were a commissioner's file and Clint Rickards crossed my path and some MPs. MPs were mislead by the police.

              I have a lot of dark secrets and I want peace in my life.

          • Marcus Morris 3.1.1.1.2
            21 July 2020 at 6:43 pm

            What is it about youngish National Party male MPs. Is it cultural, genetic or perhaps an over abundance of testosterone

            Remember that supremely arrogant young upstart Aaron Gilmore and the Hamner Springs affair back in 2013. He was dismissed from the ranks in disgrace. Then there was Todd Barclay who put a camera in his electoral office so he could “keep an eye” on his secretary. However, his successor, Hamish Walker was guilty of something far worse and must rue the day he ever allied himself with Michelle Boag. Now we have the bizarre case of Andrew Falloon. The things that they have in common is they are all male and under forty and they have all had this sense of entitlement which seems to go with the territory of being a Notional Party politician. Wasn’t it Amy Adams who stated recently that her party has a “moral obligation” to win the election. Go figure.

            • Treetop 3.1.1.1.2.1
              21 July 2020 at 9:41 pm

              Is it not a reflection of poor leadership. I thought it was the job of the party whips to sort out issues unbecoming of an MP.

              Was Bennett not a recent party whip?

  4. Ad 4
    21 July 2020 at 8:06 am

    Labour now has a good shot at four terms, not just three.

    Even though they usually recover (as Labour did after 2014), it's a good moment for some real policy ambition. Bring on the 2026 election.

    • Just Is 4.1
      21 July 2020 at 8:57 am

      Very optimistic of you

      You know of course that " one day in politics is a Very long time"

      Having said that, we all hope you're right…

    • Stuart Munro 4.2
      21 July 2020 at 10:05 am

      Four terms is a long time. Not impossible, but the public would need to be seeing positive outcomes from policies like kiwibuild and provincial growth funds or similar stimulatory ventures.

      I'm not sure much hope can be reposed in either at this point – the current model of kiwibuild has been too busy cultivating investors to achieve much. Recent stimulus spends like the riverside planting and flood protection work won't generate an income stream, which means they cannot grow whatever their success level.

      A hemp cluster, or a land-based aquaculture sector, or a composites industry, or an electronic entertainment industry offer better prospects of actual income once the stimulus is turned off.

    • Wensleydale 4.3
      21 July 2020 at 10:54 am

      I don't know about four terms. Even if National continue the self-mutilation and Labour don't engage in some unforeseen clusterfuck of epic proportions, there's a natural attrition that takes place over time due to the boredom of the voting public and their penchant for the new and exciting over the old and stale. You could be doing an absolutely mint job of governing the nation but if voters have decided you've had a good run and it's time someone else had a turn… it's game over. Four terms would be outstanding, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.

      • Just Is 4.3.1
        21 July 2020 at 1:04 pm

        The Clark era was like that, they rebuilt the economy to the point where Everyone in NZ who could work was working, the Cullen fund that put Billions into Super, the lowest unemployment in ghe world, a prosperous economy that everyone benefited from.

        Then the election arrived and the Anti smacking argument was completely blown out of proportion for political gain, it was about protecting young children from phisical abuse, but the media and National made an absolute nightmare out of it and the rest is history.

        It took Key 2 yrs to take NZs economy from the best in the world to a recession, the economy never recovered from the the ridiculous Tax policies that were introduced.

        Narrative, and the control of it is a very powerful tool, an extremely compliant and bias media pushing it along.

        • Stuart Munro 4.3.1.1
          21 July 2020 at 2:02 pm

          Everyone in NZ who could work was working

          Not even close.

          • Just Is 4.3.1.1.1
            21 July 2020 at 6:58 pm

            Oh, the Clark Govt took over from Shipley with Unemployment at 11.5%, 1999, by 2007 the unemployment rate was 2.3%, that 2.3% are people who are unemployable, it was also based on people working less than 32 hrs a week, Key changed that definition to working 1hr per week.

            • Stuart Munro 4.3.1.1.1.1
              21 July 2020 at 7:04 pm

              2.3% eh. Do you have a source for that figure?

              Part of the reason Helen lost popularity over her term was ill-founded assumptions like yours. There was plenty of unemployment under Clark, and large numbers of kiwis left for Australia as they found life was not improving under her governance. The least successful of these (or their descendants) are now being deported back to us.

      • lprent 4.3.2
        21 July 2020 at 2:30 pm

        I don’t know about four terms.

        I would have been a child the last time that any government got 4 terms in a row here.
        Yep..
        Second National 1960-1972 (I was born in 1959)
        Before that, there was the first First Labour government (1935-1949).
        After that you’d have to go to my grandparents and great-grandparents youth with the long winded Reform and Liberal governments.

        Graphical timeline of NZ governments

        • Ad 4.3.2.1
          21 July 2020 at 5:04 pm

          We are in a crisis at least as bad as that which led the first Labour government to those four terms starting in 1935. And we have a younger, healthier Prime Minister.

          Labour is going into the second term in which the crisis and the measures against the crisis will roll out over a similar timescale.

          That's also the place that John Key was in when he started his 9 years in 2008. Crisis, response, prosperity.

          If Labour has the similar capacity to sustain the popularity of its leader, then this looks very much like the start of a 9 year stretch in 2020.

          • Tricledrown 4.3.2.1.1
            22 July 2020 at 12:00 am

            Crisis then Canterbury earthquakes $60 billion in insurance payouts $20 billion govt money that's what made Keys govt look good as average wages stagnated for 9 yrs.

            GDP was anemic after inflation is taken into account.

            Hospitals had budgets frozen while the population increased by 500,000 over the Key govts years.

            We have only 700 icu beds we are at the bottom of the OECD not the world class system Crusher claims.

            Victoria Australia has 4,000 .

            Winston Peter's has the gall to say Australia was not prepared.Australia had tighter controls with one police officer on each floor of every hotel.

            [Fixed typo in user name]

    • Sean Carroll 4.4
      21 July 2020 at 10:43 pm

      I doubt that whoever wins the next election will win the following one. Too much pain ahead for many Kiwis due to the Covid 19 consequences.

  5. Peter 5
    21 July 2020 at 8:07 am

    It seems that Collins only wants people in her team who are honest and who can be trusted.

    That thought will last all day as the Smile for the Day.

  6. Sacha 6
    21 July 2020 at 8:07 am

    Collins is pinning using a mental health cover story on Falloon. https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/122193580/andrew-falloon-resigns–follows-push-from-national-party-leader-judith-collins

    He sat in her office and advised her that he was receiving professional medical mental health help and had been for some time, and that he had a significant mental health issue, she said.

    "I believed him because I'm not a medical health practitioner, I'm certainly not an expert in mental health, and if someone tells me that they have a significant mental health issue, and they've been receiving assistance then I will believe them. I will take them at his word,” she told the AM Show.

    • observer 6.1
      21 July 2020 at 8:11 am

      She already had the e-mail. But she went with the cover story.

      • Sacha 6.1.1
        21 July 2020 at 8:13 am

        Yes, I do not trust her or her staff one bit.

        • Sacha 6.1.1.1
          21 July 2020 at 8:38 am

          Must have been the PM's office mouthing to media instead, says Collins (whose staff includes the likes of Hoots lest we forget). https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/122193580/andrew-falloon-resigns–follows-push-from-national-party-leader-judith-collins

          She told the AM Show she withheld the information to protect the privacy of the young woman. “It's her, she is the victim in this, and she has asked for confidentiality and privacy, and we have provided it to her.

          What I am concerned with is that quite clearly members of the media had for more information about this and I have sought assurances from my staff, the very few who were involved in this yesterday, that they have not provided information to the media on a proactive basis, other than to clarify any questions and I would hope that the prime minister will be able to give that same assurance."

          • observer 6.1.1.1.1
            21 July 2020 at 8:49 am

            The PM can at least give the assurance that she did not provide information to Cameron Slater.

            It's a low bar to get over for any PM, but Collins couldn't manage it.

          • Just Is 6.1.1.1.2
            21 July 2020 at 9:27 am

            Collins doing the deflection routine, her Credibility is in absolute tatters

            Hope there's another Leadership spill.

            But who is there ..

            • Wensleydale 6.1.1.1.2.1
              21 July 2020 at 10:58 am

              There's probably a seat cushion in the debating chamber that's exceptionally comfy and very popular on the opposition side of the house.

              "Seat Cushion 2020 – The Comfortable Choice!"

              And it won't tell lies, send inappropriate pictures to teenagers, or be racist.

              • Just Is …
                21 July 2020 at 11:46 am

                Will Nat supporters vote for the cushion, it's actually becoming a reasonable choice given the collapse of the party structure

                Nats have spent most of their time deflecting and excusing the Shocking behaviour of many of their MPs.

                What's the next humiliating incident just waiting to be exposed..

              • Stuart Munro …
                21 July 2020 at 11:48 am

                I guess Incitatus is no longer available. He apparently gave up politics and retired to the countryside under the name of Harry Whakatipu.

            • Robert Guyton 6.1.1.1.2.2
              21 July 2020 at 11:52 am

              "National MP Chris Bishop said Falloon would have to own and account for his own statements.

              He did not think drinking was a problem in the National Party, but there was undoubtedly around the parliamentary precinct"

              So, it's the other guys!

    • mauī 6.2
      21 July 2020 at 8:19 am

      So if he had been receiving professional help for some time for a significant mental health issue, why was the National leader.. or anyone in National not aware of this??

      • McFlock 6.2.1
        21 July 2020 at 2:33 pm

        patient confidentiality.

        I see no reason to doubt that he does have MH problems.

        But this does not excuse the 4? complaints so far.

  7. tc 7
    21 July 2020 at 8:14 am

    The tactics sure have a strong stench to them already under JC.

    To play on the suicide's and again not tell the whole truth shows the a bold game plan in these times. Electorally a clear choice for NZ and methinks a time to pull out Hagers musings in DP to remind folks what JC's about when in power.

  8. Tiger Mountain 8
    21 July 2020 at 8:18 am

    Where does National find these specimens–Sheep Shagger Academy?

    Part of the problem is down to what one pundit yesterday called “sinecures”–where certain rural and provincial electorate seats are viewed as National’s “property”. Which results in unprepared and under skilled out and out dickheads, and Neanderthals–yes you Matt King–becoming MPs. Time for that inbred, privileged nonsense to be overhauled in 2020 surely.

    Sometimes the temptation to make spring loaded online responses before all the info is out does not serve an issue, and this was clearly one of those occasions. It was nice to see so many thoughtful and kind responses when this was still in the realm of mental health care for poor Mr Falloon–which it possibly still is of course, but where does that fade and opportunistic political management begin?.

    • Tricledrown 8.1
      21 July 2020 at 8:28 am

      The victims are just collateral damage no empathy from Collins more worried about her image and her former strong team member.Nothing about the mental stability of the young victims of a predatory pervert.

      • Sacha 8.1.1
        21 July 2020 at 8:31 am

        Unfair – she has been talking about the things she is doing on that front.

        • Sacha 8.1.1.1
          21 July 2020 at 8:35 am

          eg https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/122193580/andrew-falloon-resigns–follows-push-from-national-party-leader-judith-collins

          ”My first priority has to be the young woman involved, so I reached out to her yesterday, and she had already been advised by my chief of staff of his resignation, and I reached out to her yesterday to ask her to, first off to offer my sympathy for what had happened to her, and my condemnation of what had happened to her, but also to provide her with my cellphone number and my email address if she wished to discuss any other issues, or any else that we could do to assist her."

          • George 8.1.1.1.1
            21 July 2020 at 9:51 am

            If I was put into the young woman's situation I think I would feel quite intimidated by that to be honest.

            • Shanreagh 8.1.1.1.1.1
              21 July 2020 at 12:19 pm

              Are we able to call her a woman of 19 years or a 19 year old woman please?

              This is especially as we now know that the age is 19 and she is a 2nd year university student.

              'Young woman' is so vague, so cringeworthy and to me smacks of ageism. The same sort of cringeworthy that calls a 36 year old ‘middle aged’ and a 58 year old ‘elderly’. The adjectives add nothing to the what has happened. We are all able to judge the impact without being subtly guided to a reaction.

              And no why should a person be intimidated? She (writing of the first who has been reported person) has obviously good people around her and received good advice, she is at uni where there is a focus on challenging arguments/status quo not to mention, these days, smut in all its forms whether lecturer or student-led. She has grown up in a digital age would have received advice about what to do etc.

              It would have shocked her, revolted her perhaps but 'intimidated'…no I don't think so. In any case her actions show that she was not intimidated.

              • George …
                21 July 2020 at 12:39 pm

                In any situation like this when someone is sexually harassed by an older person and especially one Ina position of power it's highly likely that person would feel intimidated. The sexual harassment is designed to do that and make the person doing the harassing feel powerful. It's whole sick point of the exercise.

                • Shanreagh …
                  21 July 2020 at 1:18 pm

                  Former HR manager and EAP co-ordinator, complaints assessor in Health sector.

                  I am a feminist from way back. Hence my concern with the infantilising, babying inaccurate language being used to describe people. If we carry on then this language will become/has become pejorative – 'elderly' or 'middle-aged' are hardly used as marks of respect in the media. Far better to be factual with age 19, mid twenties, 35, 58.

                  As yet we do not know if she was in a position of employment with the MP, even as a volunteer. We do not know if he was in some other position of power with her.

                  Until we do let's call to the woman's strength, as she has already shown by making complaints.

                  He has made a mistake. She has not.

                  • George …
                    21 July 2020 at 5:34 pm

                    It was described by Judith Collins as a " professional relationship" so take it from there. No infantilism.

                • Anne …
                  21 July 2020 at 5:42 pm

                  You are right George @8.1.1.1.1. Of course this young woman was being intimidated. There is a possibility she sought help from other sources including the police and didn't get it. That would be why she and her parents approached PM, Jacinda Ardern.

                  Having been down a similar road numerous times (although only once did it involve sexually explicit activity) I am aware of the extreme difficulty in getting any sort of investigation by officialdom. The reasons are varied but here's my view borne of experience:

                  1) Yes, men are the subject of intimidation and victimisation too, but it is well known the vast majority are women.

                  2) More often than not, officialdom equates to male superiors or male police officers and they seem to have little understanding of the many ways women are used and exploited/marginalised and victimised. Nor do they understand the profound impact it has on them.

                  3) There is still a strong element of misogyny and disbelief attached to female complainants of harassment etc. When it comes to who to believe, they invariably go with the 'superior' who is usually male although in my cases a female was also involved.

                  In short, everything is stacked against the woman who is submitting the complaints and more often than not it ends up causing them further trouble and humiliation.

                  That is why so many women are too afraid to come forward with their stories.

              • anker …
                21 July 2020 at 1:45 pm

                Shaneagh, you cannot possibly know whether this young woman felt intimidated or not. End of story

                • Shanreagh …
                  21 July 2020 at 1:49 pm

                  Indeed.

                  I was not the one to raise the possibility of intimidation though so search somewhere else on the thread and take it up there please. My point is that from the actions of the woman to date she is showing strength not intimidation or that if she was intimidated her actions to date show she has risen above it.

                  I would never say that a person should or could or may have felt intimidated….their very actions show they were not.

                  George 8.1.1.1 9.51am
                  ‘If I was put into the young (sic) woman’s situation I think I would feel quite intimidated by that to be honest.’ (my brackets)

                  • anker …
                    21 July 2020 at 4:05 pm

                    it would have shocked her, revolted her perhaps but 'intimidated'…no I don't think so. In any case her actions show that she was not intimidated.

                    Above quote from Shanreagh.

                    I think you are new on the Standard unless I am mistaken.

                    There are an awlful lot of red herrings being brought up on this thread today IMO by Shanreagh and others.

                    Falloon sent at least two young women inappropriate texts. The age is

                    relevant. When a. man who is old enough to be a parent to someone is sexually inappropriate to a woman as well as the absolute yuk factor we also consider transgenerational blurring. That can have an additional impact on the victim. That a senior person, old enough to be their parent has behaved in this way. Just think about it re your comments about ageism Shanreagh. An 80 year woman raped by a young guy has an extra dimension of horror to it.

                    This doesn't undermine how detestable it is for the victim to have received unwanted material from a perpetrator the same age.

                    • Shanreagh …
                      21 July 2020 at 5:59 pm

                      I do not need a lecture about what you consider red herrings. You have missed the point I was making. I don't mind age, I abhor vacuous and meaningless adjectives such as 'young', old, middle-aged, elderly, senior, …….

                      Descriptors such as 'young', 'old', etc are one of the biggest red herrings that there is. That has been a large part of my replies today. These are subliminal messages from the MSM about the slant the reader should take. Calling a mid twenties person a 'young person' means that they want you to conjure up your belief about a young person.

                      He is 36, I understand and she is 19, he is 36 and another is mid twenties. Not on the face of it another generation, normally not parenting at age 17 or 10? We have not been advised about whether there is an extra dimension about employment, tutor, church or other positions of power.

                      If the complainant was intimidated then she would not have made a complaint, would not have approached whoever etc.

                      I do not need to have the trans generational yuk factor pointed out to me by excess adjectives such as old, young, senior. A mention of the actual ages gives me enough knowledge without being subliminally guided by the media.

                      Today I have asked that when referring to the victims we do not fall into this and put their actual age not whether you, the reporter or writer, thinks they are young, old middle-aged, etc.

                      Hoping that this is clear now.

                      My other red herring I guess(?) by your standards, perhaps, I don't know as you have been vague about them, has been to say that grief manifests itself and is dealt with in many ways, good and bad by those affected. Drinking is one of those ways of self-medicating and excess drinking can influence a person to lose control of the stop & reasoning factor – it disinhibits.

                      Suicide by close friends is a grief inducing state. Many do not know how to deal with it. This is not a red herring.

                      The acts are reprehensible, there will be an accounting for them but let's not sharpen pitchforks against him or your colleagues here.

                      The issue, if there is one, (and I am doubting more and more that there is one for Lab Party & supporters) is about JC and if she or others held onto this for political reasons. or were hoping to hide it…..This is so normal for the Nat party.

                      Of course JC turning her eyes and blaming PM for a leak that did not happen from the Govt, about a person who is not a Labour MP is worth following up….even if to point out the ridiculous scattergun approach.

        • Sacha 8.1.1.2
          21 July 2020 at 8:52 am

          I guess my point is we do not need to over-egg this. It is bad enough on its own terms already. And real people have been harmed. Not a game.

      • Treetop 8.1.2
        21 July 2020 at 10:06 pm

        The Key government gave children who were in social welfare care and in faith based care no inquiry. That is how unimportant serious sexual offending was viewed by the Key government.

        It would be nice to think that Collins has changed her behaviour.

  9. Observer Tokoroa 9
    21 July 2020 at 8:30 am

    get the Snorkel

    It looks as if the Crusher is swimming below her depth. How awful

  10. observer 10
    21 July 2020 at 8:45 am

    Lest we forget … this is Judith Collins' statement, Monday (emphasis added):

    “The National Party was advised of an issue relating to Andrew late on Friday afternoon and we have dealt with it this morning.

    “Andrew is suffering from significant mental health issues and his privacy, and that of his family, must be respected.”

    She knew then what she knows now. She had "dealt with it", and did not require Falloon's resignation.

    What changed her mind? Public reaction.

  11. Byd0nz 11
    21 July 2020 at 8:55 am

    Bit off topic, but given the present state of the ' Parties' it seems to me that this is the best chance Labour has had for yonks to be able to capture a resounding win this election and I dont think talk about ceding seats to enable another party to have a better chance is the correct line. Two red ticks could see a Labour govt for the next decade, the infrastructure rebuild needs as much time as possible, dont split your vote.

    • Sacha 11.1
      21 July 2020 at 9:00 am

      If you want the right-wingers in the Labour caucus to have their way, don't split your vote. #fify

      • Tony Veitch (not etc.) 11.1.1
        21 July 2020 at 9:28 am

        Yes, Sacha. While I have absolute confidence in giving my electorate vote to Duncan Webb, my party vote will go to the Greens.

        That way I'm certain to get real left-wingers in parliament.

        • Herodotus 11.1.1.1
          21 July 2020 at 12:38 pm

          Pity those left wingers have little green credibility

          just visit the greens and there is very little on many of those individuals standing for parliament regarding their environmental position. A month or so ago Weka gave profiles of 3 high risers and not a mention on their environmental backgrounds 😱

          • Drowsy M. Kram 11.1.1.1.1
            21 July 2020 at 2:56 pm

            "It's not easy being Green" – if only they’d stay in that biodegradable box.

          • solkta 11.1.1.1.2
            21 July 2020 at 3:13 pm

            there is very little on many of those individuals standing for parliament regarding their environmental position.

            Ummm, the point of being in a political party is that you all share the same position on stuff, it is called Policy.

            • Herodotus 11.1.1.1.2.1
              21 July 2020 at 4:37 pm

              An alternative view is that many of those representing the Greens don't have a bio that is strongly Environmental or a history of, and that anything that they would include would seen as shallow tokenism to Climate change and the environment. But take some time to read and point out what I have missed Here are a few pointers as to a start on where to look.

              https://www.greens.org.nz/our_people

              https://thestandard.org.nz/the-green-party-list-2/

              • solkta …
                21 July 2020 at 4:45 pm

                I am very familiar with the Green list. There is huge and varied talent there. It is not necessary nor desirable for every candidate to have been a full time environmental activist.

  12. JohnSelway 12
    21 July 2020 at 8:55 am

    This article should probably be updated because the recipient of his text wasn't a teenager and was over the age of 18. Makes it a little less creepy.
    As per Stuff…

    “This young woman is not a teenager and did not get her parents involved. ”

    She was 19 so I guess it comes down to where you draw the line between teenager and young adult.

    • Tricledrown 12.1
      21 July 2020 at 9:12 am

      The " recipients " were teenagers ,trying to shift the blame from the perpetrator.

      Pathetic excuses won't change the perception.

    • Incognito 12.2
      21 July 2020 at 9:15 am

      Nine-teen

      • JohnSelway 12.2.1
        21 July 2020 at 9:16 am

        Like I said – depends where you draw the line

        • I Feel Love 12.2.1.1
          21 July 2020 at 9:23 am

          Where do you draw the line John, do tell?

          • JohnSelway 12.2.1.1.1
            21 July 2020 at 9:26 am

            I kind of straddle it

          • observer 12.2.1.1.2
            21 July 2020 at 9:29 am

            It is not any kind of defence of Falloon's actions to want reporting to be accurate.

            For an hour or so yesterday the story was about an under-age girl, therefore a criminal offence. That was not correct (on current evidence, though it changes constantly).

            There is enough to condemn here, based on known facts. Accuracy matters.

        • Incognito 12.2.1.2
          21 July 2020 at 9:26 am

          Please don’t go down this path; you don’t know shit about the woman involved or her maturity and neither does anybody in the media, I’d think.

          Her age is 19, nine-teen.

          • JohnSelway 12.2.1.2.1
            21 July 2020 at 9:27 am

            Just going on what was reported

            • Incognito 12.2.1.2.1.1
              21 July 2020 at 9:28 am

              No, you’re not.

              • JohnSelway …
                21 July 2020 at 9:31 am

                Ahhhh – yes I am.

                As per Stuff…

                “This young woman is not a teenager and did not get her parents involved. ”

                That's exactly what was reported.

                • observer …
                  21 July 2020 at 9:33 am

                  Two different women, so far.

                  Again, it is changing all the time.

                • Incognito …
                  21 July 2020 at 10:51 am

                  No, you weren’t “Just going on what was reported”, you were commenting here and adding your own opinion to it, e.g. “less creepy” and stating “I kind of straddle it” clearly shows the subjectivity of your comments, just like any other comment here. That was my point. If you believe that you only state reported ‘facts’, which change by the minute, then only quote verbatim, don’t add commentary, and provide the link(s). Obviously, this is anathema to the debating culture here on TS but you can’t have it both ways. I wasn’t picking on you as such personally, I was pointing out what you (and others) are doing here. Unfortunately, the lights don’t come on easily with this one because everybody is following the spotlight of their choice.

                  • JohnSelway …
                    21 July 2020 at 10:53 am

                    As per Stuff…

                    “This young woman is not a teenager and did not get her parents involved. ”

                    That's exactly what was reported.

                    But whatever – you can think what ever you like. I don't care enough to carry on. By all means have the last word

                    • McFlock …
                      21 July 2020 at 2:39 pm

                      That was the second complainant. The one who went to her parents was 19 – a teenager.

                      Falloon is apparently the subject of multiple complaints from young women of a variety of ages.

            • Just Is 12.2.1.2.1.2
              21 July 2020 at 9:35 am

              It really makes NO difference if she was 20, it's UNACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR FROM A POLITICIAN.

              And then to lie to hide the facts simply Amplifies the issue even further.

              • woodart …
                21 July 2020 at 12:05 pm

                what amplifies the situation even further just is, are trolls like selway trying to muddy the waters. dirty politics AGAIN, or STILL.

                • Just Is …
                  21 July 2020 at 2:07 pm

                  Woodart, it amplifies the gross lack of morality and respect for the position the perpetrator held in our society, you know, he's a politician.

                  Politicians have certain moral obligations to set a good example to society, something the majority of politicians exhibit

                  • woodart …
                    21 July 2020 at 2:29 pm

                    unfortunatley ,out in the sticks, the sodbusters who show up at nat party meetings, often show appalling morals and ethics.

          • Dennis Frank 12.2.1.2.2
            21 July 2020 at 9:34 am

            Don't you think it depends on reasons for seeking clarification? After all, there was plenty of focus here yesterday on the recipient being a "schoolgirl".

            Who originated that lie? For what political purpose? Does it not seem evident to you that nonpartisan observers would draw the conclusion from this description that some on the left are just as keen on doing dirty politics as some on the right?

            The legal age of majority does seem relevant. Inasmuch as deciding whether to prosecute is concerned, and judging how serious the offence is…

            • Chris 12.2.1.2.2.1
              21 July 2020 at 9:47 am

              There are different legal ages for all kinds of things in NZ. A lot of it's a real mess, contradictions, no rhyme or reason.

            • Just Is 12.2.1.2.2.2
              21 July 2020 at 9:47 am

              Dennis, the point is the Behavior is Unbecoming of an elected official who has a Moral obligation to Lead by example

              Anyone quibling over the fact the recipient was 19 or 22 has missed the point Completely

            • Incognito 12.2.1.2.2.3
              21 July 2020 at 10:41 am

              No.

              • Dennis Frank …
                21 July 2020 at 10:45 am

                Ah, denial. Such a comforting refuge for leftists who encounter a moral challenge. Cuppa tea & lie-down also good… 🙄

                • Incognito …
                  21 July 2020 at 10:58 am

                  No, again. Your premises are incorrect, again. Feel free to bleat on, again.

                • I Feel Love …
                  21 July 2020 at 10:59 am

                  oh f off Dennis, it's unacceptable for anyone, to send unsolicited porn to anyone, those of you quibbling about age really need to examine their own values.

                  • Dennis Frank …
                    21 July 2020 at 11:16 am

                    Oh yes, I agree. Just irrelevant to the point I was making. For the reasons I specified. Misrepresenting the recipient as a schoolgirl is morally-corrupt behaviour. Not something to be ignored!

                    • Incognito …
                      21 July 2020 at 12:50 pm

                      I don’t care what point you were trying to make this time, Dennis. You replied to me with irrelevant stuff, as my reply was related to the first comment in this thread @ 12. Now, go and read that comment @ 12 and see if you can figure out what I was saying to JohnSelway, who is, BTW, as pig-headed as you are, apparently. Don’t give me that BS about moral failures of the Left (or Right) because that had nothing to do with my comments to JS. If you can’t figure it out, please stay quiet.

                    • JohnSelway …
                      21 July 2020 at 12:55 pm

                      WTF did I do?

                      Who pissed in your fucking cornflakes?

                      If you have a problem with something Stuff said which I then repeated go fucking bitch to Stuff

            • anker 12.2.1.2.2.4
              21 July 2020 at 10:50 am

              Denis the media Radio NZ and Newshub reported the victim was a school girl. They are the ones who have to answer for their mistake, not "the left"….

              Think of any 19 year old you know and are you o.k. with them receiving this material? Are you o.k. with a 25 year old receiving this material (the age at which the brain is fully developed)………….ANSWER no and no

              • Dennis Frank …
                21 July 2020 at 10:53 am

                Okay, I agree about the bad behaviour of the MP – but who is the source of those two media reports??

                • Gabby …
                  21 July 2020 at 1:18 pm

                  The aggrieved parties?
                  A gnatsy ’emotional staffer’ who wants to shift a bit of deadwood?

            • Sacha 12.2.1.2.2.5
              21 July 2020 at 11:25 am

              Who originated that lie? For what political purpose? Does it not seem evident to you that nonpartisan observers would draw the conclusion from this description that some on the left are just as keen on doing dirty politics as some on the right?

              Factions in National's caucus and staff seem far more likely than Labour's to leak to media, given their respective track records.

            • Just Is 12.2.1.2.2.6
              21 July 2020 at 11:55 am

              You've missed the point completely, its not the age of person/persons, it's the unacceptable behaviour for an elected representative to indulge in this type of behaviour

              I know Key shattered the Moral compass in NZ, but he's long gone and in the end it caught him up as well.

              • Dennis Frank …
                21 July 2020 at 12:13 pm

                I've agreed with your point already. However the issue has plenty of other points worth making, so I am!

                RNZ headline news at noon had JC doubling down, declaring that Falloon had lied both to her and the police. They followed up with their political editor reporting on denial from National MPs that they have a political culture problem!

                I get that this Nat/Lab denial thing is just human nature – evade reality for as long as possible – but it doesn't change the situation, which persists. All these claims that every offender is just an isolated one-off look pathetic. Any observer can see the current pattern. Either immorality or mental health deficiencies in each case. So Nats are in deep shit and denial won't work for them.

            • George 12.2.1.2.2.7
              21 July 2020 at 12:58 pm

              The age is irrelevant. The sexual harassment issue is. The abuse of power is. The police are interested. Your arguments are spurious.

              • Dennis Frank …
                21 July 2020 at 1:57 pm

                Like I said, the age is relevant to the decision of whether or not to prosecute. The police decided not to prosecute – although now there are multiple complainants they seem to be reconsidering. Why not get a grip on the essentials?

                • Shanreagh …
                  21 July 2020 at 2:05 pm

                  Age is relevant in the legal sense.

                  Verbiage like 'young', 'old', 'elderly,' 'middle-aged' and other descriptors has been used and is beloved by the media to get the slant they are seeking. Shock horror.

                  • Dennis Frank …
                    21 July 2020 at 3:34 pm

                    Age is relevant in the legal sense

                    That's the thing. Texting a picture that can reasonably be deemed obscene. I've been under the impression that the law classifies that as more offensive if sent to a minor. If I'm wrong about that, I presume MS will correct me and specify the legal difference – as compared to sending it to an adult.

                    • Shanreagh …
                      21 July 2020 at 3:49 pm

                      That is correct. 19 years or mid 20s is not a minor though.

                      The image itself may call down stronger penalties no matter what the age of the recipient.

                  • George …
                    21 July 2020 at 5:41 pm

                    Sending unsolicited objectionable pornographic material to anybody regardless of age especially if they're doing it to many people… could well be an offense under the digital communication act..as created by Judith Collins herself… and could mean a charge could be laid.

        • ianmac 12.2.1.3
          21 July 2020 at 9:34 am

          There seems to more than one recipients. The letter was from the woman and her parents?

          • I Feel Love 12.2.1.3.1
            21 July 2020 at 11:03 am

            He's channelling Collins who's today blaming the PMs office for leaking. Shifting blame.

            • Just Is 12.2.1.3.1.1
              21 July 2020 at 11:57 am

              Collins blaming someone else for the actions of one of her MPs.

              DEFLECTION MUCH

              • Incognito …
                21 July 2020 at 12:58 pm

                Collins is not responsible for the behaviour of other people attending parties and getting drunk, not even ‘her’ MPs. However, she is responsible for dealing with the consequences of their actions inasmuch as they impact the political process, the functioning of the Nat Party, and the individual MP being able to do his job to the standard required of a democratically elected MP and Representative in NZ Parliament. In many ways, the duties and responsibilities of the Leader of the Opposition as similar to those of the PM but the two positions are not equal and the two respective persons are quite dissimilar in many ways. Collins was creating a few false equivalences in a sly underhand way.

      • Herodotus 12.2.2
        21 July 2020 at 3:25 pm

        For those old enough to remember, and for the throngs who were not exposed to this hit song
        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b3LdMAqUMnM

    • aj 12.3
      21 July 2020 at 9:34 am

      19 = nine teen = teenager

      • JohnSelway 12.3.1
        21 July 2020 at 9:39 am

        Sure, split hairs.

        I don't give a fuck – just quoting stuff. If you want to call her a teenager then all power to you. Interesting when the Darren Hughes complaint went to down many on The Standard commented that Hughes and the 18 year old involved came under the bracket of "two consenting adults".

        • aj 12.3.1.1
          21 July 2020 at 10:43 am

          I don't give a fuck …

          Curious you would use that strong expression, John? make you feel better?

          Simple English. A person of over the age of consent can be both a teenager and a young adult.

          A teenager, or teen, is a person who falls within the ages of 13 to 19 years old. The word "teenager" is often associated with adolescence.

          https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenager#:~:text=A%20teenager%2C%20or%20teen%2C%20is,is%20often%20associated%20with%20adolescence.

          • I Feel Love 12.3.1.1.1
            21 July 2020 at 11:05 am

            John just showing his contempt for women, what's next, "she encouraged it"?

            • JohnSelway 12.3.1.1.1.1
              21 July 2020 at 11:30 am

              What contempt for women? How did you get that from anything I said? Because I quoted stuff saying she wasn’t teenager?

              That’s all I did – quote the media

              • Incognito …
                21 July 2020 at 1:01 pm

                That’s all I did – quote the media

                No, you didn’t. Please stop repeating your lie.

                • JohnSelway …
                  21 July 2020 at 1:06 pm

                  I quoted the media and said it was slightly less creepy.

                  That's it

                  There was no 'contempt of women'

                  • Incognito …
                    21 July 2020 at 1:14 pm

                    Exactly! You quoted and said. That’s it!

                    I agree that you didn’t show contempt of women. That said, I was unimpressed with your snide remark about Darren Hughes and TS; it was a whataboutism and stupid trolls use these often. Please don’t make that mistake again, thanks.

                    • JohnSelway …
                      21 July 2020 at 1:17 pm

                      What was interesting is the difference between how this is argued here compared to how it was argued with the Hughes affair.

                      Hughes affair – 18 year old as a consenting adult

                      This business – 19 year "She's a teenager!"

                      Double standard (albeit not from you specifically)

                      [You’ve made your point twice now. The “teenager” label came from the media, not from TS. No more warnings – Incognito]

                    • Incognito []
                      21 July 2020 at 1:22 pm

                      See my Moderation note @ 1:17 PM.

                    • JohnSelway …
                      21 July 2020 at 1:26 pm

                      The “teenager” label came from the media, not from TS

                      Yet when I point out the media then corrected itself and said "…not a teenager" quoting the media is suddenly a problem.

                      [Nope, whataboutisms are always a problem and you made the comparison with TS twice. Take the rest of the day off – Incognito]

                    • Incognito []
                      21 July 2020 at 1:45 pm

                      See my Moderation note @ 1:26 PM.

              • George …
                21 July 2020 at 1:01 pm

                If any male of any age sent objectionable material to any woman of any age in a workplace…they would be sacked. There would not be any of your arguments. And if you want to bend it..it works the other way around as well. It's simply about being objectionable. It's also about sexual harassment. It's unacceptable. Age is a non starter for a defense.

                • Shanreagh …
                  21 July 2020 at 1:24 pm

                  Age whether numerically or adjectivally described has nothing to do with it.

                  The conduct is bad full-stop.

                  Bad conduct is bad conduct. I would be wary of saying harassment on the basis of one incident, if the conduct was so bad then it will come under one of the misconduct clauses in many employment agreements. Harassment can be used as a basis of first strike warning.

                  • George …
                    21 July 2020 at 5:46 pm

                    I have seen it in the workplace and they don't give first warnings… people are out the door. This is also regardless of whether they use their own or the workplace devices… and regardless of it happening outside work hours. If it was found objectionable it was deemed enough to dismiss on the spot. This is companies both medium and large.

                    • Shanreagh …
                      21 July 2020 at 6:14 pm

                      I have seen it as a first warning especially where the companies' IT and HR policies are not strong enough to support dismissal without causing a justified claim of unjustified dismissal to be lodged and which in most cases would have been won by the complainant.

                      Many companies do not single out sexual harassment per se as harassment of any kind is bad in the workplace and a single instance would usually fail the harassment test which has a gloss of 'continued'/continuing’ about it.

                      By far the most cases I and colleagues dealt with over the years were about harassment, bullying etc, stress caused by ongoing and poorly handled restructurings etc etc.

                      There is case law to back up instant dismissal that would give guidance to a firm/department wanting to use a serious misconduct clause in an employment contract etc. A single instance in the absence of tight policies and staff knowledge of these policies on harassment, would not usually meet this case law test.

                      These are people's livelihoods and you have to get it right. Some firms refer instances where it is borderline criminal to the Police.

        • anker 12.3.1.2
          21 July 2020 at 4:08 pm

          Yes John, but the young women didn't consent in Falloon case.

    • lprent 12.4
      21 July 2020 at 2:45 pm

      She was 19 so I guess it comes down to where you draw the line between teenager and young adult.

      Personally I tend to view people who are in their teens (ie aged 10-19) as being a teenager. As far as I am aware there isn’t a technical or legal definition that would stand up in a court. The legal system tends to be like the technical systems – quite explicit about specific ages.

      So that means that my opinion about what a teenager is, or the post authors or stuffs ar as good as anyone else.

      I also have the opinion that most people up to the age of 25 deserve some protection because most of them tend to be inexperienced naive, and often stupid.

      I also have an opinion that people who aren’t programmers shouldn’t be allowed to vote because they are technically incompetent and are probably mindless marionettes. However I tend to defer to the puppet’s prejudices that this isn’t the case without spending my time being a witless pedant wasting time trying to get them to change their opinion….

      I just stay quiet and snigger to myself as other people exhibit the motions of intelligence and don’t agree with me.

      Just saying. 😈

  13. observer 13
    21 July 2020 at 8:59 am

    I was going to rant some more about why this "mental health" spin from National makes me so cross, but Laura Walters has done it for me, and much better:

    https://www.newsroom.co.nz/mental-health-isnt-a-political-management-tool

  14. Chris 14
    21 July 2020 at 9:02 am

    This won't affect them too much. National voters tend to have less of a moral compass than non-National voters. They'll be fine.

    • Just Is 14.1
      21 July 2020 at 9:39 am

      It's just that the last 3 weeks has been an absolute nightmare for National, it's not any one single issue, it's the compouding effect of continuous issues

      What's on the agenda for tomorrow, anybody's guess

      • Chris 14.1.1
        21 July 2020 at 12:36 pm

        And it's good collins is a publicity seeking narcissist because the more exposure she gets the more people get to see her multiple personality disorders.

  15. Ad 15
    21 July 2020 at 9:14 am

    The Labour candidate Jo Luxton was short by about 7,000 votes last time.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangitata_(New_Zealand_electorate)

    She's already in on the list, so probably won't work that hard to win the seat.

    Still, Mojo Mathers is gone so some of her 1,500 votes are up for grabs.

    Also, the Opportunities Party are gone, so there's another 1,800 votes to go for.

    NZFirst aren't standing a candidate.

    Come on Jo, give it a shot this time.

    • te reo putake 15.1
      21 July 2020 at 9:40 am

      Jeez, Ad, that's such patronising crap. Jo Luxton fought hard for the seat last election and she picked up over 13,000 votes, a 50% rise on the previous Labour candidate's result.

      Even better, in a blue ribbon, comfortably safe Nat seat, she and her excellent local team lifted the party vote too, bringing in 4000 more red ticks.

      • bwaghorn 15.1.1
        21 July 2020 at 10:34 am

        Some wag on t news last night reckoned national could stand a one legged blind man who drinks the bath water and hed still win .

        Fucking near ma spit red wine on the carpet .

        • Robert Guyton 15.1.1.1
          21 July 2020 at 10:57 am

          Pin a blue rosette on him and he's a shoe-in!

        • te reo putake 15.1.1.2
          21 July 2020 at 11:21 am

          Ha! Reminds me of Aussie polly Bill Hayden.

          Hayden was rolled by Bob Hawke and responded by saying that "a drover's dog could lead the Labor Party to victory, the way the country is".

      • swordfish 15.1.2
        21 July 2020 at 12:20 pm

        .

        Jeez, Ad, that's such patronising crap. Jo Luxton fought hard for the seat last election and she picked up over 13,000 votes, a 50% rise on the previous Labour candidate's result.

        45% rise … and only because the previous (2014) Labour candidate was an absolute disaster (at the 2014 GE, the Labour Candidate-Vote fell just 1 point Nationwide but by an extraordinary 10 points in Rangitata. So, the most revealing measure is to compare 2017 with 2011 … Luxton's 2017 Candidate-Vote is still a little down on Lab's 2011 Rangitata Candidate-Vote – whereas Nationwide it's up 3 points).

        .

        Even better, in a blue ribbon, comfortably safe Nat seat, she and her excellent local team lifted the party vote too, bringing in 4000 more red ticks.

        Nothing out-of-the-ordinary. Labour's Party-Vote was up 11.8 points Nationwide in 2017 compared to 11.3 in Rangitata.

        Main Centre, Timaru, used to be a rock solid Red Town … not anymore.

        • Pat 15.1.2.1
          21 July 2020 at 12:32 pm

          is worth noting the strength of the previous (Nat) candidate (Jo Goodhew) who was a particularly highly regarded electorate MP …Luxon could have been expected to make inroads on a pretty lacklustre replacement, as evidencing the comment on TV last night about bathwater swilling candidates having a large dollop of truth.

        • Ad 15.1.2.2
          21 July 2020 at 2:44 pm

          Taking out Rangitata would rank something like the 2020 Democrats taking Oklahoma. National could prop a blue-checked corn-tassled scarecrow on the ballot and still make it.

          (Of course focus on party vote, dib dib).

          But if there were ever a year to take this seat out for Labour, this is it.

          Here's your shot Jo.

          • Sean Carroll 15.1.2.2.1
            21 July 2020 at 10:57 pm

            But is Jo for ordinary people and for social policies or just National light? It is a genuine question. I have never heard of her.

          • Graeme 15.1.2.2.2
            22 July 2020 at 7:13 am

            If the depth of disgust at the local National MP's behaviour and the party's candidate selection is as great as in Southland, well at least the northern part of the electorate, then very unexpected things could happen.

            http://www.scene.co.nz/features/not-for-novices/

            Veteran former local National MP, cabinet minister and two-time Queenstown mayor Warren Cooper (87) says "we don’t need someone that has to learn on the job, we need someone that’s an operator from here on in, once the selection is made".

            First time I've ever seen Warren say anything remotely critical, especially publicly, of the National Party.

  16. Brutus Iscariot 16
    21 July 2020 at 9:36 am

    Yeah, she wasn't a schoolgirl, she was a university student and well over the age of consent. "Sugar daddy" arrangements are actually common amongst university students with older men (note he's only 37). An Australian website in this vein has tens of thousands of members. Secondly, the fact that her parents went directly to the PM, suggests a political element – i.e. hoping the PM would use the information for political gain. The police have laid no charges. I'm assuming this is because harassment requires a pattern of behaviour after the recipient has made it clear that it is unwanted – i.e. a single flirty message doesn't meet this threshold.

    So Falloon gets a pass from me, despite the public handwringing and moralising.

    [lprent: The sugar daddy claim you made is unsubstantiated, unlinked, and is potentially defamatory. I don’t care for the technical defense that you didn’t say that the victim was in a sugar daddy arrangement with Fallon. You certainly insinuated that – so I will treat it as an unsubstantiated assertion of false fact. That would be defamatory for both her and for Fallon.

    Banned for a year on the basis that idiot like you appear to be only too willing to make this site liable. Not to mention that this level of implied lying does tend to call your ethics into question.

    People: Stick to the reported facts and substantiate your claims with links because I’m quite unwilling to stand up in court for idiotic lying fuckwits like this one. ]

    • observer 16.1
      21 July 2020 at 9:41 am

      They did not go "directly to the PM". You should read more and spin less.

      The text was sent several weeks ago. The young woman told her parents. The police were told and (reasonably) decided not to prosecute. We do not know how many other avenues the woman or her family tried.

      Eventually they wrote to the PM. And here's the killer … if they hadn't, Andrew Falloon would still be a valued member of the "strong team".

    • Robert Guyton 16.2
      21 July 2020 at 9:51 am

      "well over the age of consent"

      Really? She consented? To "a single flirty message "?

      You're a strange one.

      • Shanreagh 16.2.1
        21 July 2020 at 12:30 pm

        18 years is the age of consent. Not saying that she is consenting 'personally' just that there are different rules & penalties for those who break those rules. This is clear from what has been posted already & a general knowledge of how offences are dealt with in this country.

        • Robert Guyton 16.2.1.1
          21 July 2020 at 12:33 pm

          Sure. Nah.

        • In Vino 16.2.1.2
          21 July 2020 at 5:33 pm

          As I understood things, 16 yrs is the age of consent (sex), and 18 yrs is age of majority – full adult rights (voting ,etc.)

          Which is why many no longer see 19-yr-olds as 'teenagers', because they are now legally adult.

    • Gabby 16.3
      21 July 2020 at 9:51 am

      Sure, what's the point of having power if you can't harrass young women, et tu?

      • Brutus Iscariot 16.3.1
        21 July 2020 at 9:57 am

        Harassment requires persistence beyond rejection. Making a single pass (unless it's actually bodily indecent assault) cannot be considered.

        Suspect that this is more a reflection of the parent's social conservatism and denial of their daughter's sexuality.

        • mpledger 16.3.1.1
          21 July 2020 at 11:10 am

          I don't think many parents would be happy to a have a man approaching their own age sending harrassing messages over txt to their daughter. It sounds like a person latching on to a fixation under stress rather than a rational, mature adult.

        • The Al1en 16.3.1.2
          21 July 2020 at 11:18 am

          I wouldn't call myself socially conservative, nor do I deny my child's sexuality, yet if some skody old fuck had sent them unsolicited porn, I'd be looking at knocking on his front door rather than emailing the prime minister's office.

          I think, if you ask most dads, he's got off quite lightly… So far.

    • bwaghorn 16.4
      21 July 2020 at 10:36 am

      Can you prove she flirted with him ?

      Ir that she wanted to be a sugar babe. ?

    • mpledger 16.5
      21 July 2020 at 10:52 am

      What's the bet the sugar daddy site is made up of 9,900 men and 100 women.

      What about the "rule of thumb" dating formula – 1/2 * age + 7 = 1/2*37+7 = 25.5. It's obviously not prescriptive but it certainly shows that 37 and 19 are considered outside the norm.

      And why should women have to put up with harassment purely because they get harassed before they can say it is unwanted. It may give the offender the benefit of the doubt but at the expense of the feeling of safety for women.

    • aj 16.6
      21 July 2020 at 10:52 am

      "Sugar daddy" arrangements are actually common amongst university students with older men

      That is a disgusting slur against university students and wouldn't stand serious scrutiny in either Australia of New Zealand. Link the website please.

      Suspect that this is more a reflection of the parent's social conservatism and denial of their daughter's sexuality.

      I suspect this is more a reflection of a grown man not being able to control base impulses and a reflection of a sort of misogyny that isn't as rare in New Zealand as we'd like to think.

      • Brutus Iscariot 16.6.1
        21 July 2020 at 11:38 am

        SeekingArrangement

        It's been featured in the media periodically over the last couple of years. The Prostitutes Collective also often reveals that many of its members are university students.

        [Your comments seem technically correct but cause discomfort here, to say the least. One of the reasons is that they could be interpreted as speculation or insinuation on your behalf. It would be advisable if you could remove any doubt from your comments and could stay away from ambiguity. We know very little about the people involved or the circumstances surrounding the case(s) and providing hypothetical answers is not constructive or helpful. I hope you understand what I’m saying and asking you to do, as this is a sensitive and politically highly charged topic, thanks – Incognito]

    • George 16.7
      21 July 2020 at 1:03 pm

      I hope you can afford the libel charge heading your way.

    • anker 16.8
      21 July 2020 at 1:51 pm

      here here for the ban I prent

    • The Al1en 16.9
      21 July 2020 at 1:58 pm

      Doesn't leaving the "potentially inflammatory" content of the original post on show continue to "make the site liable"?

      Is it not wiser to totally remove it?

      • lprent 16.9.1
        21 July 2020 at 2:04 pm

        Nope. It wasn’t a immediate defamatory statement. And I’d have to cull most of the comments in response by people objecting to the ininuation.

        It was some idiot using the Cameron Slater technique of conflating two separately true statements together and not expressing it as their opinion. A actions of a gutless troll who wanted to run a defense of “I never actually said that (but you did)” defense to anyone criticising their comments.

        I have a sharp action for that. I simply make the presumption that if the author of the comment hasn’t tied the facts together as being an opinion and owning it, then they are making an implicit assertion of fact that they’re falsely linked. Then I moderate on that. Commenters are responsible for their statements of opinion. They’re also responsible for their insinuationed statements of fact.

    • lprent 16.10
      21 July 2020 at 2:08 pm

      Brutus – please see my notice of your ban above at 16.

      If I see you try to pull the Cameron Slater troll tactic again, then I'll put you on a “never to be released” list.

  17. Tricledrown 17
    21 July 2020 at 9:36 am

    A Strong stink around the Dwindling Strong team.

    Looks like National are going to struggle to get many of their strong team reelected.Having so many MP's in electorate seats will leave very few list MP's.ACT the only beneficiary ironically.

    Goldsmith,Wooshouse etc could be gone.

    • Just Is 17.1
      21 July 2020 at 9:42 am

      They may have to advertise for Candidates on Seek then

      • woodart 17.1.1
        21 July 2020 at 10:38 am

        no, there are a steady stream of entitled, inbred, dickheads who will line up for a safe nat seat , knowing that if they keep there heads down, and vote as they are told, at the end of nine yrs, there will be a lifetime pension and some directorship jobs.

        • Just Is 17.1.1.1
          21 July 2020 at 12:02 pm

          Career Politicians, do as little as possible, that way no one can criticize them for anything as they haven't actually done anything

          A very safe strategy

      • anker 17.1.2
        21 July 2020 at 1:52 pm

        Just is @17.1 perhaps this is part of their job creation policy

  18. ianmac 18
    21 July 2020 at 9:47 am

    Collins at it again.

    I would hope that the prime minister will be able to give that same assurance."

    So she is shifting blame by innuendo to the PM. Collins is a tosser but no doubt there are those who will seize of this.

  19. Dennis Frank 19
    21 July 2020 at 9:51 am

    And another makes three. Three’s a crowd…

    9.40am: Claims of another woman contacted by Andrew Falloon https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/21-07-2020/live-updates-july-21-falloon-asked-to-resign-immediately/

    There are reports emerging of a third woman being sent sexually explicit content by disgraced National MP Andrew Falloon. Newshub’s reporting that this incident involves a different young woman than the 19-year-old at the centre of the first allegation, which led to Falloon’s resignation. It follows a Stuff report this morning of a second woman being contacted by the MP.

    Newshub’s claiming the young woman, who is in her mid-twenties, was contacted on two separate occasions about two weeks apart. “We are concerned there is a pattern of behaviour here and we suspect there could be more people coming forward,” a spokesperson for Judith Collins told the news organisation.

    • observer 19.1
      21 July 2020 at 9:58 am

      "We are concerned there is a pattern of behaviour here and we suspect there could be more people coming forward"

      So between Friday (when they knew) and Monday (when they announced Falloon's resignation), did anyone in the leadership team ask the obvious question to Falloon?

      Or did they not want to know?

      If Collins suspected, she must have questioned him thoroughly. Being as she's so tough and all.

    • Grumpy 19.2
      21 July 2020 at 10:16 am

      Might save time if all those women who have not been harassed by Falloon contact Judith Collins………

    • Shanreagh 19.3
      21 July 2020 at 12:39 pm

      Now we have a woman in her mid-twenties quoted by DF who is a 'young woman' really. We are being led by the nose here by these press reports and the use of needless adjectives.

      It is reprehensible to send porno pics no matter how old you are or how old the recipient is.

      We do not need all these extra subliminal adjectives. It would be great if TS people could discuss the issue 'straight'. Even putting (sic) around the useless adjectives when quoting.

  20. gsays 20
    21 July 2020 at 10:03 am

    Time and time again, we hear these admissions just before they go public. This happened weeks ago.

    It makes any explanation or apology hollow.

  21. Robert Guyton 21
    21 July 2020 at 10:41 am

    "Deputy leader Gerry Brownlee says he’s “disgusted” by the behaviour, saying he’s got a daughter who is a similar age to the complainant.

    Brownlee also says MPs who will fill the gaps left by resigning MPs won’t necessarily be selected to fill gaps in Māori or queer representation."

    ???? It just gets weirder and weirder!

    • Peter 21.1
      21 July 2020 at 10:46 am

      Similar age to which of the complainants?

    • Dennis Frank 21.2
      21 July 2020 at 10:50 am

      It hasn't yet occurred to him that it could be a good idea to select the next candidate on the basis of mental health. 🤪 Quick, wheel in a rocket scientist! Hooton, you awake?? Then a psychiatrist!

    • Adrian 21.3
      21 July 2020 at 11:15 am

      A bit rich from Gerry. Maybe he should be asked about the little sex for info deal.

    • ianmac 21.4
      21 July 2020 at 2:02 pm

      Pretty odd for a Deputy Leader of great experience.

      ….to fill gaps in Māori or queer representation."

      At best a 1950's sort mis step Mr Brownlee.

  22. Richard D James 22
    21 July 2020 at 10:46 am

    https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/07/duncan-garner-willie-jackson-s-desperate-attacks-on-judith-collins-shows-the-threat-she-poses.html

    Collins is making an impact – bring on the first set of polls. Has she closed the gap?

    I suggest she has

    I reckon Duncan may be right -no mater what the National do wrong (with Judith at leader they will close the gap reguardless) which leads to me to believe 40% of NZ is hard core National that will never abandon when push comes to shove at the ballot box.

    • lprent 22.1
      21 July 2020 at 1:06 pm

      Italics are mine.

      which leads to me to believe 40% of NZ is hard core National that will never abandon when push comes to shove at the ballot box.

      Ummm. I always like to assist the pig ignorant. Perhaps you should peruse the electionresults.nz some time rather than simply lying. Try the overall results from 2002 – the one that shows National receiving 20.93% of the party vote. That does rather prick your idiotic thesis. What do you use for a brain? hot air?

      NZ Election results 2002

  23. The Al1en 23
    21 July 2020 at 10:57 am

    She doesn't believe it was appropriate to discuss these issues with Falloon via text or email. Instead, she wanted to speak to him face-to-face which she did on Monday.

    If only there were some other way to speak to another person without being in the same room with them. A shame the texting device couldn't make phone calls, or the email computer didn't have that app thing they used to hold meetings during the lock down.

    2020 sure sucks for communication possibilities.

  24. Anne 24
    21 July 2020 at 11:25 am

    Speaking on Tuesday morning, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern completely rejected a suggestion from Judith Collins that her office had been involved in the media finding out about the case.

    She said that her office sent on the complaint, which it had received, as soon as it had permission from the complainant.

    Ardern said they have acted with "absolute integrity on this.

    https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/122194402/live-national-leader-judith-collins-says-shes-spoken-to-police-about-claims-against-mp-andrew-falloon

    Jesus, what a shit of a woman! I'm referring to Judith Collins. That is a deliberate attempt to infer that Jacinda is the one playing dirty.

    Its not the first time National have projected their own behaviour onto Labour and it won't be the last. Labour ignore it at their peril.

  25. observer 25
    21 July 2020 at 11:44 am

    So the dam has burst, the lies are exposed, an MP is booted out and more women are coming forward.

    All this is happening for one reason only: somebody wrote to the PM. Her office then told Collins' office, and so National were forced to act.

    We should be very grateful to the first woman's family, without whom nothing would ever have been done. Certainly not by the National party.

    Eventually we will find out who else knew, before the PM's office. It would be better if they own up first. Don't bet on that.

    • Rosemary McDonald 25.1
      21 July 2020 at 12:18 pm

      We should be very grateful to the first woman's family, without whom nothing would ever have been done. Certainly not by the National party.

      I may have missed this in the commentary…but I am assuming that this 'first woman' or her family approached the National Party leadership (okay…that's a pretty fluid concept) first, and receiving no appropriate response from them took the matter to the PM?

      Evidence that this was what happened would put down any conjecture this is a dirty politics stunt from Labour.

      • observer 25.1.1
        21 July 2020 at 12:26 pm

        So far all we know is that the woman/family told police, we don't yet know who else before they wrote to the PM's office. But the text/image was apparently sent several weeks ago. So they probably tried other avenues during that time.

        Of course, a week ago the National leadership was somebody else – but the staff were the same.

      • Gabby 25.1.2
        21 July 2020 at 12:39 pm

        Going to the PM first would suggest she was perceived as more likely to get something done.

    • observer 25.2
      21 July 2020 at 12:41 pm

      And on cue, evidence of others who knew before the PM's office did …

      "A source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, has told Stuff that twice in the past three weeks Falloon sent a woman in her early 20s naked images of another woman they both knew."

      (the link is the live Stuff update, which changes every 5 mins so …)

      • The Al1en 25.2.1
        21 July 2020 at 12:57 pm

        But that doesn't state it was known before the PM's office did. It could easily be information garnered from one of the complaints made today giving a timeline of the offending.

        You may be correct, but that link, or info, doesn't prove anything yet.

    • ianmac 25.3
      21 July 2020 at 12:59 pm

      Eventually we will find out who else knew, before the PM's office.

      Wasn't there some activity on Kiwiblog where Farrar was apparently trying to stop comments about it? Same stuff?

  26. RedBaronCV 26
    21 July 2020 at 12:27 pm

    There are some suggestions that heavy drinking was involved. In which case were there other Nat MP's there and in a similar condition?

    Other than that Nat needs to get a life . This was the party that tested the unemployed and other beneficiaries for drug use with about zero result and used a lump of money (destined for the housing corp?) to run fake drugs tests on property resulting in people losing homes and possessions.

    Perhaps they should be running their drugs testing and addiction services closer to home. There must be some thing really flawed in Nat selection processes.

    • Tiger Mountain 26.1
      21 July 2020 at 12:53 pm

      Indeed. Aaron “don’t you know who I am” Gilmore’s retort to a waiter, summed it up really as to the mentality some of these under talented provincial torys.

      NZ National Party petit bourgeois and landowners, really do think some of these electorate seats are theirs in perpetuity to be handed on to the next blowhard. National still loves to select ex coppers too for some reason–evidence Mike Sabin and Matt King.

      Nat MP Mrs Barbara Krueger is associated with a company that was convicted of appalling animal cruelty. Others have bugged and mistreated their staff. The Nats do have a problem, but it stems from their top leaderships being at the core of the NZ ruling class, and their far right DNA dating back to their 1930s formation. It is not a party fit for government in 2020 that much seems obvious.

    • woodart 26.2
      21 July 2020 at 12:54 pm

      wonder what else they do at rural nat party pissups?

  27. JohnSelway 27
    21 July 2020 at 12:29 pm

    Shit… 4 woman now with the expectation there will be more

    • Shanreagh 27.1
      21 July 2020 at 12:43 pm

      He appears to have lost all control possibly as part of unresolved grief and acting out via heavy drinking.

      And thank you for using the plain, unadorned 'women'.

      • JohnSelway 27.1.1
        21 July 2020 at 12:48 pm

        One wonders just how far this will go. If this is a repeated pattern there could be dozens of people coming forward. When something like this breaks, and several women come forward, it turns into an avalanche of complaints

        • Shanreagh 27.1.1.1
          21 July 2020 at 12:59 pm

          Also how long the powers that be in the NP caucus have known about his floundering around, drinking etc and why it was not tackled earlier.

          Surely a buddy in the caucus could have suggested something or are the NP members so motivated by a fear of being stomped on from on high that no sign of MH problems or any other trauma that make day to day coping difficult can be hinted at.

          There is no doubt that heavy drinking to dissolve the pain, often a choice, does have other repercussions.

          • RedBaronCV 27.1.1.1.1
            21 July 2020 at 1:29 pm

            He doesn't appear to be so pissed that he can't push the porn button on his phone. Drinking tends to destroy the ability to do such things as put the eftpos card through the slot and select the right recipient from the phone contacts.

      • anker 27.1.2
        21 July 2020 at 4:24 pm

        Shanreagh it is becoming clear to me you are here to rationalize Falloons actions, saying "he's lost all control”. No Falloon had control over his actions. Even when people have been drinking heavily they have some control and disinhibition usually reflects something of their true nature e.g happy drunk, aggressive drunk.

        I work in the mental health field have for decades. This is the profile of someone who has poor boundaries with women, sexualizes his relationships with them and thinks he is entitled to get off on them without seeking out a relationship with them where he has consent.

        I have worked with hundreds of people with complicated grief reactions. None have responded with this. You claim to have a background in HR.. Stick to that rather than

        making up psychological explanations for peoples bad behaviour. I suspect you are from the National Party

        • RedBaronCV 27.1.2.1
          21 July 2020 at 6:21 pm

          Agree with your take. Since yesterday we have had a steady dribble of drunk-lost all control- result was poor behaviour comments to excuse the actions.

        • Shanreagh 27.1.2.2
          21 July 2020 at 6:38 pm

          This is nothing short of insulting to me.

          You have shown a lack of understanding of what I have been saying and are now reverting to the old NP trope (well in all my years around politics it has only been seen by me from NP supporters) of saying, because you cannot be bothered reading and understanding that I must be a supporter of some other (insert any unfashionable, or 'bad' group) .

          Sorry it won't wash.

          I am not here to rationalise anyone's behaviour. I haven’t rationalised anyone’s behaviour. Dealing with grief by heavy drinking as a form of self medication is not unknown. Not everyone goes to see counsellors or is able to unfortunately and that is why workplace schemes have their place.

          Disinhibited behaviour and over-running one’s own boundaries while drinking is not unknown. People step into cars while incapable but feeling they are.

          • anker 27.1.2.2.1
            21 July 2020 at 7:37 pm

            Shanreagh, I apologize for some of my comments and if you found what I said insulting then I am sorry.

            I think sending these text to women is a separate issue from dealing with grief and that he used the mental health issues as a narrative to rationalise his own behaviour. I stand by what I said before that men who behave this way have poor boundaries around women, sexualize women and have a sense of entitlement about fulfilling their own sexual needs.

            So far there hasn't even been any proof that Andrew was drinking when he text these women, although this could be the case. His narrative is that this occurred in the context of mental health issues. Clearly Mr Falloon has told lies eg the story of howe he left his phone lying around at a party and his friends sent the text. This calls into question his whole story.

            I also disagree with you about indicating the age of the victim e.g. young woman. It is relevant. I wrote earlier about the issue of transgenerational blurring although didn't fully elucidate on why this is harmful for people younger than the perpertrator. I am not sure why you object so strongly to indicating that they woman was young.

            • Shanreagh 27.1.2.2.1.1
              21 July 2020 at 8:01 pm

              I have no problem with numerical age being mentioned, it is my preference in fact eg 9, 19, mid twenties, 36, 80.

              I have said this several times today.

              What I object to is the inaccurate adjectives that are used to guide thinking instead of using the numerical age.

              Eg 'young' especially when this descriptor is given to someone over, say 18 years (we vote at age 18). This descriptor of 'young' does not fit the usual test of being young eg mid twenties or 19 is not young. In news reports I have seen early 30s described as middle-aged, and 58 as elderly.

              old

              elderly

              middle-aged

              These words are used by MSM to subliminally guide as to what we should be thinking. I felt/feel TS writers did/do not need to be aping what the media does. I know this is a fine distinction for many.

              Basically these flabby adjectives are another form of ageism. Elderly, middle-aged, old, senior are rarely used other than pejoratively in the media while 'young' puts us in the mind of defenceless, needing protection or babyish and many women really love that! (NOT)

              We don't need to use these adjectives when we can so easily use an actual age or a descriptor like 'mid twenties', 'mid thirties' etc.

              • McFlock …
                21 July 2020 at 8:33 pm

                eg mid twenties or 19 is not young.

                cf statsnz (my italics):

                In the June 2019 quarter, the seasonally adjusted proportion of people aged 15–24 years who were not in employment, education, or training (NEET rate) was 10.3 percent.

                The NEET rate for young men was 9.5 percent, while it was 11.1 percent for women.

                NZ Young Labour:

                All Labour Party members aged 15 to 26 years old are members of Young Labour.[1]

                MBIE's Youth Employment Action Plan (pdf download page 2):

                Young people (15 – 24-year-olds) […]

                "Young" routinely includes people in their early twenties from a bureaucratic, statistical, and health perspective.

                It is an entirely appropriate term to use to describe someone in their early or mid 20s, and ommitting that aspect of the offending behaviour minimises the power imbalance and therefore severity involved in the abusive acts described so far, in my opinion.

                • anker …
                  21 July 2020 at 9:00 pm

                  100% McFlook

                • Shanreagh …
                  21 July 2020 at 9:09 pm

                  Numerical age only is best of all, we can all think.

                  Why do we need all these qualifiers? The extracts really prove my point…if you mention the numerical age you do not need to have a meaningless qualifier.

                  Let's leave out the unneeded adjectives.

                  You will never find me using such a flabby descriptor such as an unadorned 'young'.

                  So the word 'young' could apply to 1 to 25 is that what you are saying? Babies are young, toddlers are young, school children are young. It is used arbitrarily in all the instances you have quoted.

                  But if people are enamoured of it why not expand it to 30? or even further?

                  You know the phrase 'only as old as you feel' and I feel young perhaps a 'young' retiree even a 'young retiree of 65'? Sounds good doncha reckon?

                  The power imbalance in this case is between 19 & 36 and mid twenties and 36. Not really an imbalance. Not a generational gap unless you fathered a child at 10 or 17 which is not usual in this group I would think.

                  The imbalance comes more from the relationship ie if they were volunteers, or he was a tutor, or their employer when the person has a position of power over them and can adversely affect them in some way.

                  The power argument also applies say to volunteers who are in their 50s-60s in an organisation who are harassed by CEs or staff who are 30s-40s.

                  • Shanreagh …
                    21 July 2020 at 9:27 pm

                    Of course my biggest concern with it is that it sounds so paternalistic and patriarchical and makes me cringe but that is my feminism coming out. And it matters nought where you find the examples from.

                    Why use it if you are always having to define it say 'well this time I meant 10-15year old' or this time '15-24 year olds' or this time……..

                    Why use it as well as putting numerical age in…..it is redundant! Numerical age 7, 17, 18, mid twenties, 77 is all you need

                    The latter comments are being informed by readings on ageism.

                    You, or one, could make an argument that unless age was significant in a legal sense then mentioning any age is unnecessary. Perhaps abridge too far for many?

                    • McFlock …
                      21 July 2020 at 9:56 pm

                      The main reason different groups refer to "young" rather than a numeric age is that different lifecourse progressions come on at different ages. Some are largely arbitrary – voting at 18 not 19, driving at 15? whatever but contracts at 18, that sort of thing.

                      Others indicate average progression steps – onset of some medical conditions from mid to late teens, general reduction in many risky behaviours in mid twenties. People leaving home and trying to learn about flatting, work, love, true friendship, responsibilities. It would be grossly patronising to call them "children", but unfair to assume they have the same requirements or characters as someone in their thirties.

                      Recognising genuine differences isn't the same as disrespecting or ignoring someone because they are "young". Any more than "old".

                      Just because someone is old enough to vote it doesn't mean that someone much older than them doesn't have a social advantage when it comes to gaslighting, for example.

                  • Drowsy M. Kram …
                    21 July 2020 at 9:30 pm

                    One's age in years is private information, not to be disseminated in 'the media' without permission. Of course it’s relatively easy these days to find out how old a named individual is, but that’s different from having the number of years ‘up in lights.‘

                    Shanreagh's case for descriptors that are more informative than young, middle-aged, elderly etc. is well made. My preference would be to go with 'teens', 20s, 30s etc., and early/mid/late if it adds something. That's a good compromise IMHO.

                    • Shanreagh …
                      21 July 2020 at 9:43 pm

                      Could be a compromise, especially for those who do not want their actual age mentioned at all. Though if that was the case then if I had asked for my age not to be mentioned I would be pretty snaky if a journo then put I was old, elderly or young, 20s etc. Another option is to leave out any ref to age.

                      It is the meaningless, imprecise and often pejorative adjectives I object to so anything to take them away is good.

                • Patricia 2 …
                  21 July 2020 at 9:37 pm

                  Young people aged 24 and under on Jobseeker receive lower WINZ benefits than those 25 and older. Parents of students 24 and under are expected to maintain them. The level of parents' income affects tertiary students having the ability to receive student income.

                  In the opinion of some Government departments young people 24 and under are not legally regarded as fully functioning adults.

                  • Shanreagh …
                    21 July 2020 at 9:51 pm

                    Yes. I think we are now going on to discuss a 'horse of a different colour' as my dad would say, from the objections I have to using imprecise descriptors such as young, elderly, middle-aged.

              • anker …
                21 July 2020 at 11:16 pm

                Shanreagh, I understand that is your opinion

  28. woodart 28
    21 July 2020 at 12:52 pm

    collins was asked why she didnt do something straightaway, as a straight talking person. her straight reply was, that she wanted to look falloon in the eye. perhaps shes not up to the job, five day a week person. part time poli maybe?

  29. aj 29
    21 July 2020 at 1:05 pm

    the pornographic image used by Andrew Falloon – and purportedly including a photoshopped image of a female Labour MP

    Agreed. We can guess who would be the subject of this, if true.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/NZedAUS/status/1285357990040592384

    • RedBaronCV 29.1
      21 July 2020 at 1:24 pm

      If he has been sending photo's of women he knows (not photoshopped) to other women – does the invasion of privacy of the woman in the photo come under the revenge porn criminal offence type of scenario?

    • Shanreagh 29.2
      21 July 2020 at 1:36 pm

      Shocking, deserving of investigation as well as the toilet seat pictures that are so funny to Michael Woodhouse.

    • calltoaccount 29.3
      21 July 2020 at 1:54 pm

      Any more solid information on this allegation? I mean, if true, if the photoshop head is of any Lab MP and particularly if it’s of an especially popular Lab MP who we all know, respect and admire, then the Nats are done for.

      • Incognito 29.3.1
        21 July 2020 at 1:57 pm

        If you want sordid info like that, you’ve come to the wrong blog site. Please go elsewhere to satisfy your curiosity, thanks.

        • calltoaccount 29.3.1.1
          21 July 2020 at 2:04 pm

          Reasonable question, tactfully put. I’ll leave the sordid stuff for any investigation thanks. A photoshopped head onto a pornographic body is a common bullying tactic. If that is what has been done here then we deserve to know as it obviously takes It up a level. If you disagree, then I suggest you go elsewhere.

          • Shanreagh 29.3.1.1.1
            21 July 2020 at 2:09 pm

            Yes it is a common harassment, bullying tactic to put a photoshopped head onto a porno body.

            Putting a Labour MP's head onto to toilet set prize is also bullying and harassment.

          • Incognito 29.3.1.1.2
            21 July 2020 at 2:46 pm

            I disagree and I have no interest in knowing whose face was shopped onto what body nor do I deserve to know. I suppose gutter ‘pundits’ and other sensationalists would disagree with me and think this kind of sordid info is perfectly ok because not only do we want to know, do we deserve to know, but we also need to know.

            BTW, disagreement is no reason to boot somebody off the site; we value robust debate here.

            • calltoaccount 29.3.1.1.2.1
              21 July 2020 at 3:06 pm

              Well, I disagree with you!

              Putting the face of someone into another image is obvious bullying of that person, over and above whoever it is sent to. It is a common weapon of a workplace bully. If that is what has happened here, then this needs to be addressed as a step towards changing the behaviour. Failure allows the bullying to continue, which is what you are at risk of doing Mr Incognito.

              Reading back on your initial reply to my first comment, you invited me to find sordid info on another website! Wow. Doesn’t sound like robust debate sorry. Anyway, feel free to ban me.

              • Incognito …
                21 July 2020 at 3:26 pm

                Excuse me!? How on Earth do you connect you and/or the TS community not knowing the identity of the person in the shopped image(s) to me allowing the bullying to continue!? By all accounts, Mr calltoaccount, the bullying has already stopped. Are you the Parliamentary Anti-Bully Officer? You have never heard of respecting people’s privacy either?

                Finding sordid material and robust debate are two entirely different things. Anyway, feel free to leave.

                • calltoaccount …
                  21 July 2020 at 3:46 pm

                  All I’ve done is call for some evidence about a serious allegation. I didn’t ask for names, pictures etc. If there’s evidence, then it needs to be addressed as it takes it up a level. Still seems like a fair question.

                  • Incognito …
                    21 July 2020 at 4:19 pm

                    Fair enough. You only asked for “[a]ny more solid information” @ 29.3, whatever that might be, and it was not a leading question despite this part: “… if the photoshop head is of any Lab MP and particularly if it’s of an especially popular Lab MP who we all know, respect and admire …”. Yup, it seems like a fair question.

            • Shanreagh 29.3.1.1.2.2
              21 July 2020 at 3:21 pm

              We don't need to know whose head or body.

              My point to Call to Account was to agree that it is a reasonably common harassment technique that is thought of as humour by many? And we know that the same type who would send it may say the women involved, who protest, 'have no sense of humour'!

              The toilet seat picture commentary has been on media and I have no interest in putting a link up here. It has the same intent to – ridicule or denigrate those who are in the public eye.

              • Incognito …
                21 July 2020 at 3:28 pm

                We don’t need to know whose head or body.

                QFT

                • Shanreagh …
                  21 July 2020 at 3:42 pm

                  But I have never wanted to know, I know from workforce experience that that it, and anonymous (ie often not the sender's appendage) 'dick' pics, are reasonably common. I know from being a feminist, and long years in action against this kind of rubbish that the senders will respond that the woman to whom it is sent has no sense of humour.

                  They are both reprehensible.

    • Frida 29.4
      21 July 2020 at 2:57 pm

      Yep. Explains why the parents went to JA first. And I want to know who else in the Nats had the image and who else shared it…I predict there may be more to come. But I’m an old cynic from way back

      • observer 29.4.1
        21 July 2020 at 3:09 pm

        They didn't go to JA first. It was weeks after it happened. We know they went to the police, and probably others.

        • Frida 29.4.1.1
          21 July 2020 at 3:21 pm

          I meant before JC. Over at the sewer there seems to be a line that the parents must be Labour Party operatives not to go to JC first. Of course this overlooks the fact a mere mortal could be forgiven last week for not having a clue who was the leader of the National Party

          • observer 29.4.1.1.1
            21 July 2020 at 3:29 pm

            Fair point. Meanwhile, the missing question hasn't been asked/answered because Muller is away and reporters are understandably reluctant to chase him up now.

            If somebody from National was told, they should say so ASAP. It will be much worse if it's revealed later.

            • anker 29.4.1.1.1.1
              21 July 2020 at 9:06 pm

              yes can we be entirely sure that National did't know of this before receiving the info from Labour.

              BTW guess we still don't know who informed the police

            • mauī 29.4.1.1.1.2
              21 July 2020 at 9:19 pm

              Toddy has been given the Senior Trade role, so his colleagues obviously know that his 'issues' are forecast to clear up.

              With that sort of skill treating mental health issues, you have to wonder if National has missed it's calling…

          • Gabby 29.4.1.1.2
            21 July 2020 at 7:07 pm

            What kind of idiot would hand a scandal on a plate to a labour party 'operative'?

    • Gabby 29.5
      21 July 2020 at 5:48 pm

      We could ceraintly think, well that buggers the 'I was really drunk' defence.

  30. swordfish 30
    21 July 2020 at 1:48 pm

    Latest Kiwiblog Post: 'He's green, he's hairy, and he's coming for your kids'

    Given the nature of this latest scandal, DPF's possibly not reading the room as well as he might.

    • Peter 30.1
      21 July 2020 at 9:55 pm

      It's the Taxpayers Union and Jordan Williams. What do you expect – some sort of brain?

  31. Stuart Munro 31
    21 July 2020 at 2:31 pm

    Winston seems to have joined the pile-on. Probably a safer position than attacking coalition partners.

  32. Weasel 32
    21 July 2020 at 4:39 pm

    If you had any doubts about how Jacinda would perform against Crusher – or the upcoming election result – take a look at the highly anticipated first clash in Question Time, where Jacinda crushes Collins like a Canterbury prop taking on a half back. https://ondemand.parliament.nz/parliament-tv-on-demand/?itemId=214034
    Jacinda even had the Nats falling out of their seats laughing at Crusher when responding to a question as to why Labour couldn't get light rail through in Auckland when let rip with this zinger: "Sometimes it takes a longer than you would like to get what you want."
    Collins, as shellshocked as Muller did after Boag's leak. She was wooden, humourless and lacking confidence as she stumblingly read her way through her list. She failed to understand the Question Time process, giving a relaxed and confident Jacinda opportunity after opportunity to score points.

  33. Peter 33
    21 July 2020 at 5:14 pm

    I heard Collins in a tone of being affronted that Falloon lie to her and that he would lie at all, in the situation he is in. She seemed to be shocked that he lied.

    Hypocritical bitch.

  34. g unit 34
    21 July 2020 at 10:17 pm

    Oh dear.

    Just when you didn't think it could get any worse..

    "National MP Andrew Falloon is facing growing allegations of sending explicit sexual images to young women, with at least four women saying they have received unwanted messages from the 37-year-old."

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/122195149/national-mp-andrew-falloon-facing-growing-allegations-of-sending-explicit-images-to-young-women

  35. Sean Carroll 35
    21 July 2020 at 11:05 pm

    But is Jo for ordinary people and for social policies or just National light? It is a genuine question. I have never heard of her.