Uncharted Waters

Written By: - Date published: 7:59 am, October 23rd, 2018 - 175 comments
Categories: david seymour, national, same old national, Simon Bridges - Tags: ,

Just a short post to cover the latest events of the Jami-Lee Ross saga.

The media reports are that he has been committed under the Mental Health Act and is receiving treatment.

Radio New Zealand has the details of what can be expected from here:

Mr Mallard has been taking advice about the relevant legal matters and privacy guidelines.

The Electoral Act does not appear to require Mr Mallard to report to Parliament if he does end up getting a notification.

Under the Act he would, however, have to alert the Director-General of Health:

“Who, together with some medical practitioner named by the Speaker, shall without delay visit and examine the member to whom the notice relates, and shall report to the Speaker whether the member is mentally disordered.”

Then follows a six month period after which the Speaker and the Director-General have to go back to the medical practitioner for an assessment as to whether the MP is “still mentally disordered” – if that is the case the MP’s seat becomes vacant.

That is all based on a hypothetical situation, and is not the necessarily the course of action that would be taken in Mr Ross’s case.

The National Party has released this rather strange statement:

Over the past several weeks the National Party has taken seriously the mental health concerns raised by Mr Ross and the medical professionals he has been involved with.

“That has included seeking advice from medical professionals and involving Police wherever necessary to ensure support is made available to Mr Ross. It would not be appropriate to comment further.”

It is rather difficult to reconcile this with the full on attack on Ross that happened last week.  And elements of Twitterati see a conspiracy.

For me I think that David Seymour has summed up the situation well.

Although all indications are that the authorities’ response to the situation was appropriate questions will need to be asked and answered.

And there are still so many other questions:

  • Why did National partition the Yikun Zhang donation and will there be a response from the authorities?
  • Will there be a repercussion for the Cathedral Club donation entry in Bridges’ electoral return?
  • Will Simon Bridges see a further support fall for his clearly bad decision to proceed with a full blown investigation?
  • Why did National try and hide the situation from the public for so long?
  • What will Cameron Slater blog about next?  His latest revelations have been brutal.
  • Will National use the Waka jumping law?  And if they do how will they justify their hypocrisy?
  • When will Paula be deposed?  And when will Simon’s time be up?

So many questions …

Please keep the discussion respectful.  Matthew Whitehead’s outstanding post on the Weekend shows how it is done.

175 comments on “Uncharted Waters”

  1. tc 1

    Unchartered suits national and their msm shills to play the margins……funny that.

    If the msm did it’s job the conversation between JLR and bridges alone is enough to go on with regarding donations and ethnic communities.

    The mental health issue and his behaviour towards women is totally separate from his bagman duties.

  2. Ross 2

    I think you meant uncharted waters. 🙂

    [I do – :blush: – corrected – MS]

  3. Ross 3

    Andrew Geddis has written about the new electoral integrity law and that National is entitled to dump Ross. But he doubts they will.

    https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/ross-bridges-and-the-party-hopping-law-updated-for-recent-developments

  4. Dennis Frank 4

    Also interesting that the foreshadowed political polls failed to show. Perhaps the two channels agreed it would be tossing a can of petrol onto the bonfire…

    • mickysavage 4.1

      Colmar Brunton apparently will be out tonight.

      • Dennis Frank 4.1.1

        Cool, thanks. Just saw the AM Show doing a report card on the PM, anniversary of entry into office. Ryan Bridge, host, gave her 6/10 during his interview with her earlier. Sarah Hendry said 8 or 9 for marketing, only 6 for delivery. Gower said he couldn’t put a number on it but gave her a gold star on both counts. But he also called her performance in failing to give a date for the cannabis referendum “pathetic”. She’d said during the interview “we’ll have to get onto it soon”.

        • ScottGN 4.1.1.1

          I wonder if there’s some tension within the Coalition around the timeframe for holding the referendum? You’d think the Greens would be keen to run it in conjunction with the general election, it will be great motivation for some of their supporters who often don’t make it to the booths on polling day?

          • bwaghorn 4.1.1.1.1

            The problem with having it then it will become a massive bat for the scum right to hit the left with .
            They will bury any rational debate with frothing misleading babble .

      • veutoviper 4.1.2

        Thanks for that info. I was wondering whether TVNZ/Colmar Brunton had decided to hold over until today.

        There has also been rumours of another poll – presumably a Newshub Reid Research poll – as they and CB are the only public political polls currently being run in NZ as Roy Morgan has opted out since the end of 2017.

        With regard to Newshub, I found David Farrar’s comments in the following Newshub article yesterday very interesting in relation to what he says about the possible effects on polling results of the recent Bridges/Ross events, particularly those of last week.

        I was left wondering whether there has been a Newshub poll with results similar to those mentioned by Farrar – or whether his own Curia polls are indicating falls of the levels he has suggested.

        https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/10/just-how-much-has-the-jami-lee-ross-saga-damaged-the-national-party.html

        • Dennis Frank 4.1.2.1

          Yes indeed. The mention of ten per cent seems indicative. I don’t share his confidence in the blip/rebound effect. More ominous than that, I reckon.

          • veutoviper 4.1.2.1.1

            That is also one of the least “Nats are right about everything” commentaries from Farrar I have ever seen.

            And I also give him some points for the measured way he has presented his latest posts* on the JLR/mental health subjects on Kiwiblog over the last few days.

            Posts only – not the resultant comments!

            Unless I am mistaken and I have been keeping a close watch, the silence from Bridges, Bennett et al has been deafening over the last few days.

            No usual morning interviews on media etc …………

            Hardly a mention of any of their names on media ………………

            • Dukeofurl 4.1.2.1.1.1

              When did Farrar morph into an out and out surrogate/party spokesman ?

              Wasnt his shtick for a long time that he was a neutral commentator of most issues that his partisan background didnt need to be mentioned. At most he would be called a ‘pollster’ or ‘insider’

            • Gabby 4.1.2.1.1.2

              Slick Bodges may have figured he’d best shut his hole having scurried around the media telling them to shut theirs.

    • Enough is Enough 4.2

      Although very welcome news that the Nats have finally lost a huge proportion of the electorate, it is disappointing that the big drop is as a result of their own internal issues, rather than what the government has done.

      I would be a lot more comfortable in relation to long term prospects of the government if the swing in the polls this week was a result of the work that the government is has done.

      • veutoviper 4.2.1

        I agree it would be much better, but what I am finding interesting in reading the right wing blogs is the number of commenters who are now questioning the current Nat leaders and the Party as a whole and not just expressing blind faith in them.

        Even David Seymour is doing so from the wider perspective of democracy is also questioning their handling of the current situation, not just in the one tweet in the post above – but he makes some excellent points in further tweets in the very long thread under that initial tweet, as do some of the other contributors to the thread.

  5. Cinny 5

    This bit from the nat’s statement is troubling…..

    ‘involving Police wherever necessary to ensure support is made available to Mr Ross’

    Exactly when did the nat’s ring the police and ask them to get involved with jlr, was it in the weekend?

    • ScottGN 5.1

      Does anyone know the rules around committal to mental health services? It hardly seems possible that a citizen can be sectioned without the involvement of at least immediate family members?

      • veutoviper 5.1.1

        Plenty of information (and misinformation) in the long commentary on the “Lets talk mental health” post – and in the post itself.

        I suggest that you go and read the post and comments rather than we rehash the same thing over again here.

        • ScottGN 5.1.1.1

          Sadly more misinformation than information in that thread.

          • Cinny 5.1.1.1.1

            Have only had personal experience re a family member making the call.

            But say if one had no immediate family and few friends, however they had worked at the same job for many years…….. because there would be circumstances like that.

            Am not sure how it goes down when family aren’t involved in the process.

            • Dukeofurl 5.1.1.1.1.1

              Re making the call . Doesnt the local mobile mental health assessment team be the best people to call or even if you dial 111 and ask for ambulance they will guide you while on the phone then and there to get the best help immediately.

              Police seem the last thing to call- that is unless you have a doctor whos done a remote diagnosis and immediate removal is required.

              I think all our jaws will drop when we find out how this panned out- Im hoping JLR will bounce back from this crisis to tell us

              • JohnSelway

                How many times do you need to be told the same thing?

                The police frequently attend mental health call outs regardless if they have been called directly.

                Why do you keep making the same mistake?

              • Cinny

                In that instance Duke, the call was made to the persons Dr by one of their parents, and the Dr advised mental health and so.

              • JohnSelway

                “Im hoping JLR will bounce back from this crisis to tell us”

                I’m hoping JLR will bounce back for the good of himself and his family rather than to satisfy your own needs.

                • In Vino

                  I took Cinny to mean “bounce back AND tell us” rather than “Bounce back IN ORDER TO tell us.” Aren’t you getting a little over-precious?

                  • veutoviper

                    Leave it. It is not over-precious,

                    He has shared his own mh situation elsewhere on here today. And in terms of the English language, there is no difference in meaning between those two statements.

                    • in Vino

                      There is a different shade of meaning, but I will leave it, as you suggest.

                    • veutoviper

                      To In Vino – thanks and I would like that discussion on a friendly level, but there are more important things at present. Kia kaha

          • veutoviper 5.1.1.1.2

            Citizens’ Advice Bureau (CAB) has some good, simple and clear information on legal rights and issues re mental health etc. This info has been quoted here several times but here is a link to their starter pages on these issues.

            http://www.cab.org.nz/vat/hw/leg/Pages/home.aspx

            http://www.cab.org.nz/vat/hw/leg/Pages/MentalHealthAct.aspx

            This information backs up what John Selway keeps saying (eg on Open Mike this morning) about privacy of medical information, and who may (and may not) release that information.

            • Dukeofurl 5.1.1.1.2.1

              An MP taken by Police into a hospital for treatment changes everything, as the info about the speakers involvement suggests.

              Plus Ross has been vocal about his medical situation and how it had been manipulated by Bridges. It said so on twitter.

              have you notice that Hospitals release medical treatment ‘basics all the time’ say after a road accident or say some one was badly injured after a horse riding accident and was airlifted to hospital…. injuries not life threatening … that sort of thing.

              For mental health issues we arent helped by a culture of excessive secrecy as thats what makes taboos stronger instead of openess.
              I remember when a kid that anything about cancer was talked about in
              hushed tones, and mental health ‘never discussed’. Now people understand words like rehab and what it means and that saying you are getting help ( may be undefined) isnt a bad thing.

              As for CAB ? really
              We have skilled people for health issues of all types by calling 111 and asking for Ambulance. They have triage nurses who can call back after the call taker for a better assessment and as I mentioned regions have specialist mobile mental health teams on call.

              • ScottGN

                According to this on Stuff JLR waived privacy rights to his medical records. Friends of his also dispute assertions from Bridges and Bennett that he was well enough to cope with the fallout from the leak enquiry.

                https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/108027905/jamilee-ross-saga-national-mps-fall-in-behind-simon-bridges

              • JohnSelway

                Why do you feel entitled to know Ross’s private medical history? What makes you so special?

                • veutoviper

                  Suggest that you avoid that one. I learnt a few weeks ago that it leads to lots of bruises from banging head repetitively. Now on my ‘Do not reply to’ list for the sake of my physical head – and my mental health.

                  • JohnSelway

                    For me this is important. As a sufferer of depression and someone who has been in the mental health system for nearly 20 years it is a subject very close to my heart.

                    • veutoviper

                      I realise that – and support you totally in terms of the privacy principles and rights, etc. In terms of engagement, it is the ‘who ‘that I was referring to, not the ‘what’.

                    • Dukeofurl

                      This changes everything, as I have said. And does allow the wider public to know the circumstances of Bridges being taken to hospital.
                      ““Who, together with some medical practitioner named by the Speaker, shall without delay visit and examine the member to whom the notice relates, and shall report to the Speaker whether the member is mentally disordered.”

                      Im not interested in his diagnosis or any treatment, you keep making that mistake. Just how and under whos authority did this happen – see regular police releases on all sorts of things they get called out for.

                      Im not letting my own circumstances, like you are , affect what is a matter of high public importance. As mental health issues arent confined to a narrow section of people, lots of people have experience of the system in all sorts of ways, so that doesnt make your voice especially unique or even pertinent.
                      Theres nothing wrong of course in you taking that point of view, its called having an opinion. But thats all you have and its not convincing.

                    • JohnSelway

                      No matter how many times you say it is of public importance it isn’t public information. Only Ross has the say so of who can know what. Not you or anyone else in the public. No one is compelled to satisfy your curiosity and you have no right to know.

                      The authority to section someone can ONLY be done by a team of mental health experts. No one else. Not national, not the police, only mental health and medical professionals.

                      There’s your answer. It doesn’t matter what you say – those are the facts, not opinion and it doesn’t matter how much you want to know – it isn’t a matter for the wider public unless Ross explicitly says so.

                      It doesn’t matter you’re not convinced. Those are the facts.

                    • George []

                      John selway is right. Regardless of public interest and the public role that someone has, the details pertaining to the actual state of somebody’s mental health is confidential. The same as any other bit of their health. The circumstances around it have been made public via whatever means..if not with their permission, then that is a breach of their medical confidentiality.

                    • veutoviper

                      By ‘who’ I did not mean who can or cannot provide medical information etc. I meant the commenter here.

                    • JohnSelway

                      I was talking to Duke and his insistence he has a right to know things he has no right to know

                    • mikesh

                      You seem to imply that, even if JLR is completely sane, that fact must remain confidential.

                  • Drowsy M. Kram

                    Duke @12.04: “Bridges being taken to hospital” – now there’s an idea.

                    • veutoviper

                      Wondered what you were saying … then checked above and clicked! LOL but worried re JS …

                    • Dukeofurl

                      or this from the national party release on this:

                      involving Police wherever necessary to ensure support is made available to Mr Ross’” ( hat tip Cinny)

    • Carolyn_Nth 5.2

      The Nats could have notified the police earlier than this weekend. For the police to acted on early Sunday morning, they could have been contacted by someone earlier in the week. ie after JLR started going rogue.

      • ScottGN 5.2.1

        According to this from justice.govt.nz

        Preliminary assessment

        After an application is made, a medical practitioner or doctor (called the responsible clinician) assesses the patient. This is called a preliminary assessment.

        The preliminary assessment takes 5 days and the responsible clinician must decide if there are reasonable grounds to believe the patient has a mental disorder.

        After 5 days, a certificate of preliminary assessment is issued and the patient is told in writing if the responsible clinician believes more assessments and treatment are needed.

        https://www.justice.govt.nz/family/court-ordered-treatment/mental-health-treatment/apply-for-a-mental-health-assessment/

        • Bill 5.2.1.1

          Yeah, but that appears to pertain to family members making the application. Down the bottom, the appeal process goes through the family court.

          I’ve asked about this below, ie – how can it be that an organ like the National Party applies to have someone sectioned?

          • Pat 5.2.1.1.1

            not restricted to family members…..any concerned ‘party’ may request if they have ‘concerns’ for the safety of the individual or others

            • Bill 5.2.1.1.1.1

              From the same page linked above – Applying for a compulsory treatment order – (I mean, he was “taken” according to news reports, so…) A relative of the person, the police or other reputable person can make an application for a CTO.

              A reputable person. National Party. Reputable person…

              Those terms are going around in my head like two polar opposite magnets 🙂

              • Pat

                Lol….its in the eye of the beholder.
                Theres a confusion here between two processes…the initial assessment period and the subsequent legally imposed treatment should the initial assessment determine it is required (in the face of patient opposition)….there can be a significant delay before the courts become involved if needed.

              • Dukeofurl

                Whale oil said he had to inform JLRs wife about what happened.

        • Psych nurse 5.2.1.2

          There are procedures that are checks and balances to the commital process.
          A family member or reputable other makes an application called a section 8a, a medical officer completes section 8b, the first check, on completion of section 8b the process is facilitated by a DAO most usually a Mental Health Nurse sometimes a Social Worker or Occupational Therapist, they become responsible for the welfare of the proposed patient. The DAO, if they are satisfied as to the validity of an application issues a section 9, will organise for the proposed patient to be taken to a place of assessment [the second check] and contact a consultant Psychiatrist to make an assessment. At this stage police may be required to assist with transport but the patient remains the responsibility of the DAO. The Psychiatrist if they are satisfied that the mental Health Act should continue will issue a section 11[third check] which lasts for five days.The patient is required to accept further assessment and treatment for that period. The commital process can cease at any stage. The patient can be discharged at any time,five days not being arbitary. If further treatment is required the patient is placed under section 13.
          Being under section 11 of MHA does not always require hospitalisation, a patient can receive home based care and assessment,.
          That all sounds fairly civilised doesn’t it but in reality most admissions requiring the Mental Health Act are off their faces on drugs, have no ability to decide their own fate, assault the staff and as soon as released relapse into further drug use.
          Mental Health units are over stretched, under resourced and pressured for beds, there is no need to troll the streets looking for the odd MP, abuse powers of detention and tidy up problems for the National Party. We are busy enough.

          • JohnSelway 5.2.1.2.1

            “Mental Health units are over stretched, under resourced and pressured for beds, there is no need to troll the streets looking for the odd MP, abuse powers of detention and tidy up problems for the National Party. We are busy enough.”

            Exactly right. Thanks

            • Sabine 5.2.1.2.1.1

              oh i am sure they will have a bed for JLR.

              they just simply don’t have beds for people who are not MPs.

              • Gabby

                It is strange how many homicidal thugs seem to kill their exes without much consideration given to their mental health. Until afterwards of course.

          • Dukeofurl 5.2.1.2.2

            Psych Nurse , thanks for your valuable comments.

            This was the part that interested me most-
            Being under section 11 of MHA does not always require hospitalisation, a patient can receive home based care and assessment,.

            This is the background we need, the processes and procedures that led up to ‘treatment beginning’ at hospital or at home.

      • ScottGN 5.2.2

        Or they could have formed their own opinions after meeting with Mr Ross on Oct 17.

    • ScottGN 5.3

      Mr Ross himself went to see the police on October 17th.

    • Draco T Bastard 5.4

      When did National have the standing to call the police on JLR in the first place?

      • Dukeofurl 5.4.1

        See the wording in the statement released by the Nats
        “…That has included seeking advice from medical professionals and involving Police wherever necessary …”

        one ..two.. and hes into hospital.

        • JohnSelway 5.4.1.1

          National, or anyone else for that matter, can only tell police/CAT/the hospital/whatever that they believe Ross is in trouble.

          The ONLY people that can section him are a team of mental health/medical professionals. He can’t be put in hospital just because some one calls it in – he needs to be assessed and the standards are high and rigorous. If someone has been sectioned then there is a real problem.

          What are you misunderstanding?

          • George 5.4.1.1.1

            I gave up on this yesterday.. people seem to be entranced by the idea promoted by American movie’s that someone calls in a bunch of people in white coats and they roll up, grab them and lock them up for life. That is fiction.

          • ankerawshark 5.4.1.1.2

            I believe you are correct John S, having worked in mental health and had quite a lot of involvement with the Compulsory Treatment Order area.

            I believe Jami-Lee is entitled to his privacy over his hospitalization and treatment. The safeguard is that he can call a lawyer and there are a series of reviews, including going before a judge. Also it seems the Speaker of the house needs to be informed and organise a medical review.

            I think there are questions if it was someone in National who applied to section Mr Ross, very much so. There are District Inspectors of Mental Health and of safe guards as above.

            I also have to say that most of the staff I have meet (including psychiatrists) are on the left or of a liberal persuasion. This is likely even more so, after nine years of the Nats neglecting and chronically underfunding mental health.

        • Enough is Enough 5.4.1.2

          You comments suggest that National holds a heck of a lot more power than they actually do.

          To infer that National has the power to do this, would involve a conspiracy with a medical professional fraudulently signing it off.

          I think that doctor of yours must be standing behind the grassy knoll

    • ankerawshark 5.5

      Cinny @5 Chris Trotters latest article on The Standards feed is interesting re these sorts of questions.

      • Cinny 5.5.1

        Thanks 🙂 will check it out.

        • cleangreen 5.5.1.1

          Cinny

          I added a blog to Cheris Trtters article on TDB today as a blogger has revealed that it was Mark Mitchell who called the police to take JLR to hospital.

          Apparently Mitchel is a “sworn Police member”still!!!!!!

          It seems that Mitchell attended a meeting at JLR electoral office last saturday to talk to him and after that he called the police on him.

          Apparently the article said Mitchell knew how to section him and take custody of JLR, so it is getting very scary and very dark here now.

          ttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2018/10/23/missing/

          quote; JOHAN says:
          OCTOBER 23, 2018 AT 12:49 PM
          “Jami-Lee Ross has been living in his Botany office. His wife had kicked him out. She knew about his affair with Ms Dowie a lot earlier than this week. Mark Mitchell was sent to sort him out at the Botany Office on Saturday, and he was the one who called police. He is a sworn officer so he knows what to do. He was also the person who tried to speak with Ross earlier in the week.”

  6. ianmac 6

    Polling. I imagine that by habit Colmar Brunton would have run the results past the National Party and “tweaked” some of the results to suit, hence the delay.

    • alwyn 6.1

      The accurate part of your opinion is the words “I imagine”. You do have a vivid, if confused, imagination.
      The rest is rubbish

      • ianmac 6.1.1

        Typically you have no sense of humour Alwyn.

        • cleangreen 6.1.1.1

          Ianmac
          Alwyn never ever had any ‘homour’!!!

          You could break a bottle over the head of this blogger, and would not shown any reaction.

  7. Bill 7

    Like a number of others, I’ve been keeping away from the whole Jamie Lee Ross /National Party circus, but…

    Are we to believe that the National Party had him sectioned? How’s that work? Surely (or at least I’d have thought) a section can only be requested by a fairly narrow group of people.

    I mean, (surely!) I can’t just bail up to the medical authorities and say I want person ‘x’ sectioned. And likewise, surely my employer can’t just bail up to the medical authorities and request I be sectioned (or evaluated).

    In fact, can anyone other than a family member or some such request a section or an evaluation?

    Something seems to be really fucked up about all of this. If I was to threaten an employer with petrol, then sure, they might report me to the police and the police might have me evaluated by the medical profession and I then might be sectioned.

    But that’s not quite the picture I’m getting from all of this.

    Sorry if this has already been covered off in the multiple comments and posts that I was ignoring. But a simple sketch of the procedures or criteria that apply to a section under the mental health act might be enlightening…

    • JohnSelway 7.1

      No one can have anyone sectioned without a full assessment from mental health specialists. If he was sectioned there was a real medical reason – not just because someone called it in.

      That’s how it works. If someone is really alleging the National did it then National would have to have operatives in the mental health system willing to section someone on their behalf. Which is fucking crazy

      • Dukeofurl 7.1.1

        There are also rights for those detained under the mental health provisions

        Right 9: The right to company
        [Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992, s 71]

        A patient has a general right to the company of other people. You can only be isolated or put into seclusion if this is necessary for your treatment or safety, or for the protection of others.

        Right 10: The right to have visitors and make telephone calls
        [Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992, s 72]

        You have the right to have visitors and to make telephone calls. This right can be lost if your responsible clinician believes that to have visitors or make calls would not be in your interests or be bad for your treatment. But you cannot lose the right to access legal advice, a District Inspector or an independent psychiatrist.
        Other rights covered under BORA.

        Full details here
        http://communitylaw.org.nz/community-law-manual/chapter-16-mental-health/your-rights-as-a-mental-health-patient/

        • JohnSelway 7.1.1.1

          So?

          What’s your point?

          • Dukeofurl 7.1.1.1.1

            You arent an expert. You are confusing your own experiences as a way to over ride other ‘opinions’, who may well have a wider or braoder experience than you to draw on. Just saying.

            Well over 10 years ago now , I knew for a few years a doctor who wasnt a psychiatrist , but was called in the bureaucratese , ‘special Scale’ and he worked in the mental health area. he would be an expert. Same would go for say a mental health nurse who worked with acute care.

            Lets provide more and better credentialed info than just ‘experiences’

            • JohnSelway 7.1.1.1.1.1

              It doesn’t matter whether I’m an expert or not.

              The facts remain that:
              A) no one can be just be sectioned without robust medical assessments by mental health staff
              B) You, nor anyone else from the public, has any right to any information without Ross’s explicit say so.

              My opinions and own experiences aside, those are the facts, not just ‘opinion’.
              What are you having difficulty with?

              • Stuart Munro

                Your confidence in the mental health system is admirable, but the people involved in it are only human. Some may be fools. Some may be rogues. It wasn’t so very long ago that some of them were administering ECT.

                If it were the police who invoked the mental health apparatus in this instance, who made that decision and why are relevant.

                The Gnats at this point would cheerfully Khashoggiize JLR if they thought they could get away with it. It is perfectly reasonable to look for assurances that that is not what’s going on.

                • JohnSelway

                  Jesus man, there is so much wrong here.

                  Firstly ECT is still used because it is effective in some cases. I know it sounds weird but it actually does work for some people. I had an ex-girlfriend with severe bi-polar and ECT worked where drugs didn’t work.
                  https://www.health.govt.nz/publication/electroconvulsive-therapy-ect-new-zealandwhat-you-and-your-family-and-whanau-need-know

                  The police don’t ‘invoke the mental health apparatus’ but sometimes attend callouts and will drop someone off at the appropriate place. It is the job of the mental health medical team to ‘invoke the mental health apparatus’ – the police are merely a form of safe transport.

                  The who and why are covered by medical confidentiality and Ross and Ross alone decides what and how much information he wants to share about that day.

                  Lastly – the comparison to Khashoggiize is hyperbole and in very poor taste.

                  • Dukeofurl

                    It would be great to see you( Selway) get off your ‘expert horse’ and just give a considered opinion rather telling others what ‘is wrong’ all the time.

                    I dont have private information so I cant release it. Nor would the treatment be released even if asked, but maybe under the provisions of the law for Mps being detained for treatment.

                    The circumstances of the police being called and nationals involvement but not is family is our business

                    • JohnSelway

                      “The circumstances of the police being called and nationals involvement but not is family is our business”

                      No, it’s not your business. It’s Ross’s – not yours.

                  • Stuart Munro

                    You know, I’ve read quite enough of your nonsense over the last few days.

                    “The police don’t ‘invoke the mental health apparatus’ but sometimes attend callouts and will drop someone off at the appropriate place.”

                    You think so? Mad, bad, or sad comprise a lot of police work, and they do make that call from time to time.

                    Fine – you think you know the police did not pull the trigger on this. Who did? If they’re Ross’s family privacy provisions might apply. If they’re a Gnat MP, as is alleged, then they do not.

                    • JohnSelway

                      “Fine – you think you know the police did not pull the trigger on this. Who did? If they’re Ross’s family privacy provisions might apply. If they’re a Gnat MP, as is alleged, then they do not.”

                      No, medical privacy isn’t dependent on a third party – it is dependent on Ross and Ross alone. What you call nonsense is actually fact. When and if Ross wants to talk – then we’ll know. It is up to him and no one else.

                      Someone called up because Ross was in trouble of some kind. Who did isn’t relevant. The only relevant issue is that a team of mental health and medical experts agreed.

                      And that’s that – no matter how much you want to masturbate over your own fevered imagination. Something has gone terribly wrong with Ross, so much so he has been sectioned which is an INCREDIBLY high bar to hurdle. You can’t be sectioned just because someone said so.

                    • Stuart Munro

                      No matter how often you repeat yourself, if JLR were sectioned in the interests of the Gnats, and at the instigation of a Gnat, then that information does not form part of his medical privacy. On the contrary, it is a matter of immediate public interest.

                      No matter how much you insist otherwise you are utterly and unequivocally wrong.

                      And please, spare us please the pathetic details of your sexual ideation as you indulge in the Sisyphean task of turning a lie into the truth.

                    • JohnSelway

                      “No matter how often you repeat yourself, if JLR were sectioned in the interests of the Gnats, and at the instigation of a Gnat, then that information does not form part of his medical privacy. On the contrary, it is a matter of immediate public interest.”

                      No – people don’t get sectioned for political expediency. You are suggesting the team that assessed Ross must also be in on it. National operatives in the Mental Health team? Really?

                      It doesn’t matter how many times you say it – Ross medical situation, both historically and currently is his business. Not yours. It’s the fucking law you nitwit.

                      But hey, if you are so sure I am wrong – prove it.

                    • Dukeofurl

                      His wife didnt know, so tends to exclude family to some extent. nats seem to have released a statement saying they had an involvement ‘along with police and medical professionals’- more than his wife knew.

                      In my view ‘medical treatment’ starts with walking through the hospital door and thats the point that the curtain closes unless Ross makes his own comments ( hes entitled to visitors and phone calls unless overuled for medical reasons only )

                      With the doctor(s) ?? national refer too, was JLR a patient of theirs or was there a police -medical connection.

                    • JohnSelway

                      “In my view ‘medical treatment’ starts with walking through the hospital door and thats the point that the curtain closes….”

                      No no no. Any, ANY discussion I have with my doctor is private. Be it by phone or email or any other means of telecommunications.

                      Everything on Ross’s medical history is kept private unless he says otherwise. I had an ambulance called on me once and the entire record, third party included, is private and confidential. What’s “in your view” is irrelevant. Your view doesn’t supersede the law you know. Your view doesn’t mean shit

                    • Dennis Frank

                      Slater wrote on his blog yesterday that a National MP called the cops in, to get Ross appraised for the sectioning. Legal, dunno about moral. They would have had the legal advice they were able to do so for quite a while, perhaps, so the decision to do it wasn’t made till Saturday.

                    • McFlock

                      Actually, any medical consultation is confidential, regardless of your view. That includes nat docs you don’t like.

                      If a doc committed him clearly without cause and JLR makes a complaint, the doc is toast. If he’s committed with plausible cause, fair enough – he’ll be assessed and then treated or released.

                      If he’s been committed, Mallard will be having a chat with him.

                    • Stuart Munro

                      “No – people don’t get sectioned for political expediency.”

                      I can see why, having no argument whatsoever beyond a childish belief in the incorruptibility of mental health services, you would want me to prove a negative.

                      There are plenty of examples from other administrations of that happening. If it has happened in this instance, that makes it our business.

                    • McFlock

                      If it has happened in this instance, that makes it our business.

                      And if it has not happened, then baseless speculation is demanding a callous invasion of personal privacy.

                    • JohnSelway

                      It’s not your business until Ross says it’s your business.

                    • Stuart Munro

                      @ McFlock

                      The parts of the process applied to JLR that are not medical are probably not covered by medical privilege.

                      Names of attending police, reason for attending, and, in the absence of a warrant or a medical assessment, the person requesting that they attend, and their reason for doing so.

                    • JohnSelway

                      “The parts of the process applied to JLR that are not medical are probably not covered by medical privilege.

                      Names of attending police, reason for attending, and, in the absence of a warrant or a medical assessment, the person requesting that they attend, and their reason for doing so.”

                      Stuart Munro of The Standard does not decide any of that. JLR decides that. Not you.

                      Reason for attending – Ross’s business
                      The person requesting they attend – Ross’s and the medical team decide that
                      The attending police – irrelevant (and Ross decides that)
                      The reason for the request – Ross decides that
                      Absence of a warrant or a medical assessment – the medical team assessed it, it wasn’t in absence so Ross decides that.

                      You don’t decide anything or aren’t rightfully entitled to anything.

                    • McFlock

                      Names of attending police, reason for attending, and, in the absence of a warrant or a medical assessment, the person requesting that they attend, and their reason for doing so.

                      So I can’t call the cops without my name going in the paper?
                      What if he was attacking somewhere with a hammer, goes into medical care: the cops release his name and that he was causing criminal damage, then he gets assessed as just being a dick and the defense lawyer argues the release of information tainted any possible jury?
                      Oh, a loud party gets broken up – should the cops be obliged to name the noise complainant? Maybe only if the party is an MP’s? Can you see that going wrong in any way?

                      And why do you need the names of all involved, anyway – are you going to interrogate them yourself? Or if they made the correct call at the time, will they have to withstand accusations that because they once voted nat JLR is being detained fraudulently?

                    • Stuart Munro

                      @McFlock

                      There is some responsibility to show cause – unless you wish the police to have carte blanche in such instances.

                      If violence or destruction of property were a factor, or noise or nuisance, as per your example, then a non-prejudicial statement to that effect “there was a disturbance” “there was property damage” or something of the kind should not tax police capabilities.

                      As for naming names – if, as has been alleged, it was a National MP, then secrecy is not appropriate; it goes to political rather than medical or humane causes, and they may be accountable in the fullness of time.

                    • JohnSelway

                      Medical privacy trumps your need to know for political expediency.

                    • Stuart Munro

                      @ John Selway

                      “Names of attending police, reason for attending, and, in the absence of a warrant or a medical assessment, the person requesting that they attend, and their reason for doing so.”
                      Stuart Munro of The Standard does not decide any of that. JLR decides that. Not you.”

                      Actually, no. JLR does not define the extent of medical privilege.

                      Generally speaking this refers to ” information obtained by medical practitioners and clinical psychologists”

                      http://r127.publications.lawcom.govt.nz/Chapter+10+-+Privilege+and+confidentiality/Medical+privilege+and+confidential+information

                      Information not obtained by them is not covered by medical privilege, though it may be covered by other privacy legislation.

                    • JohnSelway

                      “. JLR does not define the extent of medical privilege.”

                      Yeah he does. Anything relating to him is his to divulge.

                      Even if there was some reason to divulge some information outside of Ross’s specific say so… You don’t fucking decide that. You have no rights to any information. Stuart Munro of The Standard has no fucking right to anything related to this.

                    • McFlock

                      As for naming names – if, as has been alleged, it was a National MP, then secrecy is not appropriate; it goes to political rather than medical or humane causes, and they may be accountable in the fullness of time.

                      But that’s the point – they’ll be held accountable anyway, regardless if the cops release details immediately.

                      On the flipside, if they did make a legitimate call (if it was a nat in the first place), then naming names now opens a nat up to baseless accusation the (probably) one time in their life they chose to do the right thing.

                      The information serves no purpose for us, so it is not our business.

                      There are processes for dealing with wasting police time, police exceeding their authority, and medical professionals who get in on the conspiracy and commit malpractice. They do not take place in the space of a long weekend.

                    • Stuart Munro

                      “. JLR does not define the extent of medical privilege.”
                      Yeah he does. Anything relating to him is his to divulge.

                      I cited the relevant legislation.

                      You are simply wrong.

                    • JohnSelway

                      What makes you, Stuart Munro, decide what is to be divulged or not?

                      YOU don’t decide – Ross decides, his doctor decides, his family decides.

                      You don’t

                    • Stuart Munro

                      “YOU don’t decide”

                      No I don’t.

                      I am obliged to follow the law you plonker – and so are you.

                      The law states what is, and what is not covered by medical privilege, it’s not a handy duvet to throw over whatever you want.

                    • Dukeofurl

                      Thanks for that Stuart.

                      Some are confusing police attendance as ‘medical treatment’, until he walks into the hospital door he isnt being treated. Simple.
                      If a political party has an involvement with the situation before treatment began, that too should be public information.

                      Any one detained has rights to phone calls, visitors ( unless strictly medically inadvisable) so that side may yet occur.

                    • JohnSelway

                      “Some are confusing police attendance as ‘medical treatment’, until he walks into the hospital door he isnt being treated.”

                      No, you nitwit. I’m being treated for depression right now and I’m at home and haven’t been into a hospital for ages.

                      Stuart – it would help if you could cite the actual law you are referring to because just throwing the entire act up isn’t actually helpful. Give me the section.

                    • Stuart Munro

                      Thanks DoU.

                      It may not be quite that simple though. Were I a humble police officer obliged to section a possibly furious MP, I would try to have a medical and maybe a legal authority in attendance, so that compliance would not become an issue.

                      In that instance those circumstances might also be held to be covered by medical privilege – though it’s more tenuous.

                    • Stuart Munro

                      @John Selway

                      It isn’t laid out particularly clearly, but for lawyers. Generally it relates to information gathered by and communications between patients and medical practitioners, and in particular, what they may be expected to provide to a court, either with or without a court order.

                      The skinny is that details of conditions, treatments, and of most conversations between clients and medical folk are privileged. It’s not absolute however – and a court order can overturn it in some cases.

                      The medical person has some leeway to determine what is or is not privileged within such a relationship – treatment details certainly, impressions or other matters only possibly.

                      http://r127.publications.lawcom.govt.nz/Chapter+10+-+Privilege+and+confidentiality/Medical+privilege+and+confidential+information

            • KJT 7.1.1.1.1.2

              My own experiences dealing with the mental health system, for people, parallel Johns.

              Whenever we have wanted a crisis team, we have got the police. The crisis teams are desperately over worked and understaffed.

              Dukefoil you are arguing from ignorance.

        • Dennis Frank 7.1.1.2

          Thanks for that clarification. It relates to my concern that privacy law cannot eliminate his civil rights – I realise the Supreme Court may have to decide this. The confiscation of his cellphone suggests that he is being held incommunicado, except that we have word friends have visited him. Reporters seem not to have asked the obvious questions: does he want to communicate with the media, and why did they confiscate his phone if he has the right to use it?

          I know, we live in a country where everyone is meant to conform to the `thick as pigshit’ tradition. But some of us are nonconformists, so it’s always possible to perform better than that.

          • George 7.1.1.2.1

            Our family member in the same hospital in the same unit had his phone. He was seriously unwell but was allowed to use his phone if he chose to. They have a bunch of items that they keep separated in Te Whetu Tawera assuming.. and those are because of risk of self harm. But it could be conceivable that a public figure with a lot of media interest may wish NOT to have access to a phone during this time. So has relinquished it for their own sake.

          • veutoviper 7.1.1.2.2

            Dennis, from everything I have read, the statement was that he did not have his phone with him – not that it had been confiscated. Big difference.

            It may be that he has given his phone to someone else – hopefully not Slater as there appear to be suggestions they were together on Sat.

            Again IIRC, he was seeing a lawyer late last week, and if so, it would not surprise me if the phone (with texts etc) and other things like recordings etc were left with his lawyer for safe keeping. Again hopefully.

            Too many – dare I say it – “Chinese Whispers” going on in this whole situation.

            https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/chinese-whispers.html

            An alternative link (more secure) – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers

            If I really wanted to stir things here, perhaps I should use the alternative name for that old game – Russian Gossip! LOL

            • Dennis Frank 7.1.1.2.2.1

              Fair enough, and I realise that if someone is non compos mentis (to recycle an oft-used phrase from the past) they may not even be able to think about their phone, or feel motivated to use it if they do.

              I just find it weird that reporters somehow can’t ask the obvious questions about a whistleblower on a mission. And implications of disempowerment re civil rights breach. Somebody ought to be operating as the victim’s rights advocate for him, but even his lawyer seems gagged. It all stinks.

              • veutoviper

                The reality is that we do not know what is happening behind the scenes – nor should we, the public, at this point.

                Yes, there are masses of questions that in the longer term need to be answered – some rightly in the public interest arena; and others strictly in the individual privacy and civil rights arenas.

                Far too much ignorant speculation and conspiracy theorising going on and doing some peoples’ heads in, understandably.

              • McFlock

                Reporters probably know they won’t and shouldn’t get an answer.

                Also: “not having a phone” is not the same as “incommunicado”. It just means you don’t have the constant buzz of messages and updates. Probably quite therapeutic on its own merits.

                And why do you think that his lawyer is “gagged”, as opposed to merely preserving their client’s privacy?

                • Dennis Frank

                  I wrote seems not is. I assume a lawyer representing a whistleblower would understand the public interest dimension of the situation. Why focus on privacy instead of his rights? Enough others doing that already.

                  Incidentally Lisa Owen on Checkpoint just said they’ve received a long text, apparently from the woman to JLR, which they’ve chosen mostly not to describe, but it ended with her saying he deserved to die, so there’ll be a written report of that soon…

                  • McFlock

                    Because JLR’s rights include privacy.

                    Again, if JLR’s lawyer disclosed private information without explicit consent of JLR, a complaint could be made to their professional body.

                    btw, “seems” not “is” is a fine pinhead to dance on when talking about your thoughts.

                    • Dennis Frank

                      His lawyer ought to be speaking to the public on behalf of his client, to allay public concerns. His lawyer ought to be explaining that his client’s cellphone has not been confiscated by state agents. If that is actually true. That is necessary to establish that further undisclosed evidence is being preserved, not destroyed.

                      I routinely use seems rather than is when the facts aren’t clear. Most people do. Don’t you??

                    • McFlock

                      His lawyer ought to be acting on his instructions alone. That is all.

                    • Dennis Frank

                      That presumes Ross isn’t sedated, actually has his phone, contrary to media reports, is able to contact his lawyer and issue instructions. And I don’t believe a whistleblower’s lawyer would ignore the public interest, and duty to represent his client on that basis.

                    • JohnSelway

                      His lawyer works at the behest of what Ross wants, not what you think he should be doing.

                      What makes you so special that you decide what should be happening.

              • George

                Dennis Frank…a person can be compos mentis and mentally unwell. One doesn’t necessarily suffer cognitive decline at the same time as severe emotional distress or a ” breakdown” as it can be called. A person can suffer extreme physical symptoms as well as physical distress and be perfectly aware intellectually. Probably wish they weren’t.

    • Rae 7.2

      There is a scenario where I think it could be possible, as I do think the committal comes from a certain act, that even here I feel afraid to actually name, but say, if that was the case and a call was then made to Bridges or Bennett, they would I expect call the authorities.

  8. Draco T Bastard 8

    And there are still so many other questions:

    And none of the answers to those questions are dependent upon JLR’s mental health. They all need to be thoroughly investigated. Especially the apparent electoral fraud.

  9. ianmac 9

    A short piece without identity other than a friend:
    “Botany MP Jami-Lee Ross is improving but remains in the mental health wing at Middlemore Hospital, after surviving a “very real situation” on Saturday night, a friend says.”

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/video.cfm?c_id=1&gal_cid=1&gallery_id=199694

    PS This may have been picked out from another source.

  10. patricia bremner 10

    Ianmac, they needed to airbrush poll results quite a bit to look good.

    Most would see National’s recent behaviour as pretty awful to put it mildly.
    Statements by Simon Bridges and Paula Bennett were abusive and damaging and a misuse of their positions imo. The use of ’embarrassing and rotten egg’ was unhelpful to be charitable!! The reveal of personal details was an explosive item, meant to wound, and created a new low in political rows.

    Their usual ‘clean up sqad’ looked obvious on t.v. Inept and self interested.
    The reporting has at times been shocking, repeating slurs and using unhelpful adjectives about JLR. conversley praising National’s party and supporters as ‘putting things in place’. Is that a euphemism for applying pressure to an already volatile situation?? Like the appointment of Mark Mitchell as a ‘minder’ for JLR? As well as making the above comments, and apparently disregarding medical advice about pressure.?

    I am pleased the Speaker will possibly have a role with his choice of medical support, as earlier in this saga he showed sagacity and made insightful comments.
    This is not about politics anymore. It is about JLR’S right to support, and upholding his human rights in the face of power.

    • mary_a 10.2

      @ patricia bremner (10) … as you mention MP Mark Mitchell being appointed as JLR’s “minder,” by Bridges/Bennett, it makes me now wonder if it was MM as a former police officer, who knew the rules re mental health sectioning, if he was with JLR on Sat/Sun and called in the police?

      Ross, who appeared quite rational and stable right up until Friday evening, could have been talking about what he knows and what he’s going to reveal, to Mitchell, who then arranged to have JLR sectioned. It’s all very odd and things are not stacking up.

      • JC 10.2.1

        Your on the money mary.

        …. Ross “told how, when allegations were made against former MP Todd Barclay, he was the one sent around to be his “mate” and to push him towards leaving quietly.

        … he also said, “National MP Mark Mitchell visited him with what he alleged was a similar offer.”

        “There was a point where I was in my apartment in Wellington laying on the couch … and I realised the same thing was happening to me,” he said.

        “It dawned on me, ‘I know this script, I helped write this script.’

        https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/ross-says-many-mps-affairs

        And apparently .. See CG’s comment above 5.5.1.1

        “Apparently the article said Mitchell knew how to section him and take custody of JLR, …

      • patricia bremner 10.2.2

        I did not know mark Mitchell was still a sworn officer. It is possible that is why he was chosen, . As to other reasons, .. who knows.

        As we were told earlier. Once sectioned it is a constant threat.

  11. patricia bremner 11

    At the risk of a blast, I agree with Whaleoil’s latest comments, which I read due to Micky’s comments.

  12. Cinny 12

    bridges is now going to launch an internal inquiry, to make sure women in the national party feel safe and supported.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/108034318/national-party-to-review-employment-practices

    ‘Bridges said he didn’t believe there was a “culture issue” within the party, but it would seek independent advice on whether its current systems for dealing with such matters when complainants came forwards were up to scratch.’

  13. ankerawshark 13

    Cinny @ 12, actually that is one good thing National are doing

  14. ianmac 14

    I was thinking back to the awful state that Clare Curran suffered, and wondered if her welfare was taken care sympathetically. It happens. A way back about 2002 when Nick Smith had a bad turn over the Deputy job for English I think. Like having a panic attack but still able to function OK.

  15. ScottGN 15

    From newsroom

    “Bridges said he had not found out about Ross’s admission for treatment until after the fact, although he would not comment on the role of anyone else in National.”

    https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2018/10/22/288592/national-seeks-independent-advice-after-ross-allegations

    • Dukeofurl 15.1

      They are up to their necks in it..
      As their earlier statement in full confirms

      “A National Party spokesman said: “Over the past several weeks the National Party has taken seriously the mental health concerns raised by Mr Ross and the medical professionals he has been involved with. That has included seeking advice from medical professionals and involving Police wherever necessary to ensure support is made available to Mr Ross. It would not be appropriate to comment further.”

      ‘Involving the Police’ is the important part

  16. Pat 16

    An excellent piece on RNZ by Danielle Moreau

    “This saga began, just over a week ago, with the possibility of financial corruption in political party funding, and turned into several other things along the way. But of these aspects of the scandal are inextricably linked – we shouldn’t just follow the money, but also cherchez la femme.

    Because the people who have bought into this system use money and women (and probably a lot of other vulnerable people and things) almost interchangeably in their quest for power. Dominance and control take precedence over ethics and empathy, and our political landscape is poorer for it.”

    https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/on-the-inside/369228/jami-lee-ross-conflict-reveals-a-troubling-system-of-power

  17. Reality 17

    Though JLR has been outed as a very flawed person, Paula B’s, Judith C’s, & Maggie Barry’s venom from within their witches coven that they poured all over JLR last week speaks volumes, when it was well known he had mental health issues. Funny they have gone quiet now. What thoroughly unlovely females they are.

    As a matter of interest, what would be the reason for the woman MP involved in the affair with JLR not being named? Presumably she was a consenting adult.

    • Rae 17.1

      A very simple process of elimination revealed her identity to me. I started with someone describing his type as slim and blonde with long hair, then looked at a group photo (it might actually appear on this site) and look who was close or closish to him in it, and, BINGO! Go on, give it a go.
      PS she may not have been the only one

      • Dukeofurl 17.1.1

        Rae did you check that ‘bingo ‘ was a married MP, not all are
        One of the others was a parliamentary journalist and two of the other women were parliamentary leaders/office staff.

    • mpledger 17.2

      Yea, it’s all very, very grubby. Everyone in National seems to be playing power games with little care for who they harm.

    • Rae 17.3

      It isn’t the group photo on this site, it appeared on another one. Look also for rapid promotion

    • mary_a 17.4

      Reality (17) … Hearsay has it, she is a married MP from the south.

  18. CHCOff 18

    This is past the limitations of political democracy to handle for a start.

    Mr JL Ross was talking Chinese influence, the day before this latest happened John Key stuff, his unspecified recorded data & other evidence or leads, & he’s left alone essentially with some National operatives while the media is ‘allegations’ from multiple woman because some transient trysts happened and looking back this or that was threatening or uncomfortable about them (it takes two to tango folks), Bridges vs Mr JL Ross feud, and a big sensationalised thing about mental health in communities and families – with an issue that is clearly about possibly a major NZ security threat at the heart of civil society.

    Secondly, as trusty posters here at the standard have shown, his twitters and public statements before he was detained were all the OPPOSITE of what the media explanations and sources/friends, have being saying since the involuntary arrest to a mental health institution.

    The next step to put this to bed would be his further evidence released that is ultimately inconsequential & tabloid replacements as prescribed to Mr JL Ross, as presumably his ORIGINAL stuff has had a good going over by now in this episode, to cover up what could have been any number of improper rorting.

    The reaction by interests fronted by the National party in creating this latest episode speaks volumes to the depth of the rorting derailing NZ i believe.

    There is a difference between rorting and lobbying; this further shows New Zealand needs a constitutional change to bring in NZ demand and supply lobbying to the system at it’s heart to clean things up sustainably and above board.

    • Rae 18.1

      Ross I believe has been utterly self serving all along, he would be and most likely was, happy to take advantage of anything untoward going on, until the tables turned on him. Everything is true, Ross is a heel, the Nats have one hell of a lot of dirty laundry, including sheltering him as he was a “good fundraiser”, there were those who knew exactly what he was, those who suspected and the few naive for whom ignorance was bliss, I would be very surprised indeed, if Bridges was in the third category.
      I find Katrina Bungard’s “I’m happy with how the party dealt with this” a bit sick making as well, happy to leave other unsuspecting women to his devices.
      What a mess, the guy has probably been harbouring and hiding some sort of personality disorder all along, but it’s taken this for it to really manifest itself.

  19. Killing Horik – King Ragnar – YouTube

  20. Dennis Frank 20

    Tova O’Brien’s clarification of the process alerts us to the role played by a court:
    “When a Member of Parliament is taken into care like this it triggers a little-known process under the Electoral Act. The court who ordered the detention, or the hospital where the MP is detained, has to notify the Speaker “as soon as may be”. The Speaker then tells the Director-General of Health who with a medical practitioner, most likely a psychiatrist, visits and examines the MP.”

    “If the MP is assessed as “mentally disordered” (a legal term, not a medical term), the Speaker orders another assessment after six months. If they’re still assessed as “mentally disordered”, the two reports go before the Parliament and the MP’s seat is considered vacated.”

  21. outofbed 21

    #freeJamielee

  22. cleangreen 22

    Jamie Lee Ross needs to again stand for letting NZ know how dirty the National Party is now; – #freeJamielee

  23. Ankerrawshark 23

    National only down by 2%………what the…….

    Bridges down, Collins up

    Labour and jacinda up

    • ianmac 23.1

      David Farrar says a bump of say 10% after an “event” can be recovered. It is the one or two % down each month which counts.
      In this case the National folk would rally behind the team to show solidarity and refuse to let JLR win. But later on…

    • ianmac 23.2

      Jacinda 42%
      Simon 7%
      Judith 5%
      I think.

  24. patricia bremner 24

    JRL IS RELEASED FROM HOSPITAL .

  25. R.P Mcmurphy 25

    what the bloody hell do the nationals party think they are doing involving the police in the political process.
    they{the nationals} are the crazy ones!

    • mike 25.1

      ttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2018/10/23/missing/

      quote; JOHAN says:
      OCTOBER 23, 2018 AT 12:49 PM
      “Jami-Lee Ross has been living in his Botany office. His wife had kicked him out. She knew about his affair with Ms Dowie a lot earlier than this week. Mark Mitchell was sent to sort him out at the Botany Office on Saturday, and he was the one who called police. He is a sworn officer so he knows what to do. He was also the person who tried to speak with Ross earlier in the week.”

      • Muttonbird 25.1.1

        Not surprised Mitchell had his hands all over it.

        You’re not in Baghdad now, Mr Mitchell!

        I’m hopeful the media will look further into why Mitchell was there when Ross had resigned from the party and the National caucus had been abusing him all week.

        Perhaps Mitchell was like the letting agents so many renters in New Zealand fear. The ones who come to kick you out on the street.

  26. Pat 26

    “Asked specifically whether National was responsible for calling any emergency services, Goodfellow said, “I’m not going to go into the detail of it.”

    Pressed further on whether any National MPs were involved, he said, “I’ll let them answer.”

    https://www.interest.co.nz/news/96507/national-party-leader-simon-bridges-and-president-peter-goodfellow-say-they-heard-second

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • New digital service to make business easy
    A new digital platform aims to make it easier for small businesses to access services from multiple government agencies, leaving them more time to focus on their own priorities. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Minister for Small Business Stuart Nash ...
    4 days ago
  • Million-dollar start to gun collection events
    Million-dollar start to gun collection events  Police Minister Stuart Nash says a solid start has been made to the gun buyback and amnesty after the first weekend of community collection events. “Gun owners will walk away with more than ...
    5 days ago
  • Praise after first firearms collection event
    Police Minister Stuart Nash has praised Police and gun owners after the first firearms collection event saw a busy turnout at Riccarton Racecourse in Christchurch. “Police officers and staff have put a tremendous effort into planning and logistics for the ...
    5 days ago
  • New Police constables deployed to regions
    Seventy-eight new Police constables are heading out to the regions following today’s graduation of a new recruit wing from the Royal New Zealand Police College. Police Minister Stuart Nash says the record high number of new Police officers being recruited, ...
    2 weeks ago