Young Labour Summer Camp

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Young Labour Summer Camp - Feb 2018

1 | ... | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | ... | 21

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2314620 10-Sep-2019 23:32

networkn:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12266570

This writer probably isn't the most balanced, but she does raise some reasonable questions around the timing of the PM's knowledge that this was an alleged assault of a sexual nature.

You also have to square it with this comment she made yesterday in her press conference":

"A month ago I visited New Zealand [Labour Party] Council. Very seriously shared my view that they were not the appropriate place to undertake inquiries around concerning behaviour of members of the Labour Party. But particularly they are not the appropriate place to ever undertake an investigation into a sexual assault. And that would be their view too."

Why would she say to the Labour Party council that they were not the right people to investigate an alleged sex crime, if she didn't know the allegations were of a sex crime?

Because she did. She did know

You're right that she's not balanced. I'd take it further - to say that to draw that conclusion ("she did know") from the comment quoted shows serious cognitive dissonance. It's truly not logical to make such a conclusion from the statement. It's remotely a possibility that she might have known, so you ask the flipping question before suggesting that she might have known as fact. She needs to take a deep breath before submitting stuff for publishing, the editors should be flayed.

It's fake news as presented. Shame on HDPA and the NZH.

Mahon

473 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 214

#2314669 11-Sep-2019 07:41

Fred99:

networkn:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12266570

This writer probably isn't the most balanced, but she does raise some reasonable questions around the timing of the PM's knowledge that this was an alleged assault of a sexual nature.

You also have to square it with this comment she made yesterday in her press conference":

"A month ago I visited New Zealand [Labour Party] Council. Very seriously shared my view that they were not the appropriate place to undertake inquiries around concerning behaviour of members of the Labour Party. But particularly they are not the appropriate place to ever undertake an investigation into a sexual assault. And that would be their view too."

Why would she say to the Labour Party council that they were not the right people to investigate an alleged sex crime, if she didn't know the allegations were of a sex crime?

Because she did. She did know

You're right that she's not balanced. I'd take it further - to say that to draw that conclusion ("she did know") from the comment quoted shows serious cognitive dissonance. It's truly not logical to make such a conclusion from the statement. It's remotely a possibility that she might have known, so you ask the flipping question before suggesting that she might have known as fact. She needs to take a deep breath before submitting stuff for publishing, the editors should be flayed.

It's fake news as presented. Shame on HDPA and the NZH.

I dont want to contradict you here...but the shame is elsewhere. Sexual abuse and the subsequent cover up is where the shame lies.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2314765 11-Sep-2019 08:11

Mahon:

I dont want to contradict you here...but the shame is elsewhere. Sexual abuse and the subsequent cover up is where the shame lies.

Sure - nobody disputes that.

HDPA has stated as fact an opinion (that JC "knew" about the sexual assault part of the allegations) and provided "evidence" for that claim based on statements that don't suggest that at all.

It's a pretty serious matter to accuse a PM of covering up a sexual assault. For a reporter to do that when the evidence she presents doesn't support the claim is awful gutter journalism. HDPA has a history of doing things "unconventionally" - coordinated planned hit-jobs on individuals - and she's broken the law to do it. She's yet another NZ journalist who puts all her effort into being the news rather than reporting the news, and she keeps getting away with it.

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2314784 11-Sep-2019 08:53

I thought it was PB who raised in the initial red flag about the Labour staffers, not JC?

Is it really so hard to believe, after the Curran/RNZ and other Labour MPs and staff bullying issues, that someone decided to put themselves between Jacinda and the actual goings on in this case? It seems far more plausible someone decided to keep Ardern out of it, without appreciating how that would look when the seriousness of it all eventually came out. It wouldn't be the first time.

That doesn't change the fact that an issue in her office is her problem, not something she should be palming off as a 'party matter' - but I don't buy the fact that JA is knowingly covering up sexual assault when it's far more likely some party spruiker has tried to keep her out of it, whether by omission or outright misleading her. Either way, it's still her problem as leader and as the person who runs her office to deal with.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15474

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2314796 11-Sep-2019 09:00

Fred99:

It's a pretty serious matter to accuse a PM of covering up a sexual assault. For a reporter to do that when the evidence she presents doesn't support the claim is awful gutter journalism. HDPA has a history of doing things "unconventionally" - coordinated planned hit-jobs on individuals - and she's broken the law to do it. She's yet another NZ journalist who puts all her effort into being the news rather than reporting the news, and she keeps getting away with it.

I am hardly a fan of JA, but I think it somewhat unlikely she would outright lie about something like this at a press release. If she did, she should go. The question is, how could she seriously not know? As referenced in that article, the NZH has published articles about this case (initially I thought this latest report was yet ANOTHER) previously. Is she really so disconnected? Is that not concerning? I mean it's not a minor thing. At the very least one of her minions should have been raising this with her. If that's not happening, what else is she not aware of?

For the record I do not expect any PM to be across every piece of scuttlebutt or news article or issue in NZ, but this is way beyond that.

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2314965 11-Sep-2019 13:14

....and Labour President is gone.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Mahon

473 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 214

#2314977 11-Sep-2019 13:39

GV27:

....and Labour President is gone.

about time....disgusting...lets hope the Police get involved now. Interesting that he offered his resignation to Ardern in the first instance.

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2314984 11-Sep-2019 14:01

Well this is bad. According this Spinoff article:

August 10

Jacinda Ardern attends a meeting of the New Zealand Council, the governing body of the Labour Party, where she “expressed complete dissatisfaction with the way [the inquiry] had been handled by the Labour Party”. She “very seriously shared my view that they were not the appropriate place to undertake inquiries around concerning behaviour by members of the Labour Party, but particularly they are not the appropriate place to ever undertake an investigation into a sexual assault.”

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/11-09-2019/timeline-labour-staffer-misconduct-inquiry/

September 9

The Spinoff publishes a 4,000 word investigative feature detailing Sarah’s experience, headlined: “A Labour volunteer alleged a violent sexual assault by a Labour staffer. This is her story.”

A statement from Nigel Haworth provided to the Spinoff includes the following: “It’s important to be clear that none of the complaints the party investigated related to sexual assault. The person leading the original review made it clear to the complainants that the party would never be the appropriate body to handle allegations of that nature and that they would need to be investigated by the police.”

At her weekly Beehive press conference, Jacinda Ardern fields several questions on the issue. “I want to make it very clear that I am deeply concerned and incredibly frustrated by the process that has been undertaken by the Labour Party, but also obviously by the nature of the allegations,” she says. “I was informed in the very beginning that the allegations made were not sexual in nature. That is obviously directly counter to what is now being reported.”

So did she know Monday or a month ago?

Question Time is kicking off; JA is being asked if she stands by her statements.

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2315029 11-Sep-2019 14:15

...and Bridges takes his line of questioning towards Kiwibuild for some reason, while Bennett is more muted in her questioning of the PM.

I wonder if National is acting with a hint of discretion around this? Or perhaps not seeing a need to pour any extra fuel on the fire.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#2315044 11-Sep-2019 14:34

GV27:

Well this is bad. According this Spinoff article:

August 10

Jacinda Ardern attends a meeting of the New Zealand Council, the governing body of the Labour Party, where she “expressed complete dissatisfaction with the way [the inquiry] had been handled by the Labour Party”. She “very seriously shared my view that they were not the appropriate place to undertake inquiries around concerning behaviour by members of the Labour Party, but particularly they are not the appropriate place to ever undertake an investigation into a sexual assault.”

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/11-09-2019/timeline-labour-staffer-misconduct-inquiry/

September 9

The Spinoff publishes a 4,000 word investigative feature detailing Sarah’s experience, headlined: “A Labour volunteer alleged a violent sexual assault by a Labour staffer. This is her story.”

A statement from Nigel Haworth provided to the Spinoff includes the following: “It’s important to be clear that none of the complaints the party investigated related to sexual assault. The person leading the original review made it clear to the complainants that the party would never be the appropriate body to handle allegations of that nature and that they would need to be investigated by the police.”

At her weekly Beehive press conference, Jacinda Ardern fields several questions on the issue. “I want to make it very clear that I am deeply concerned and incredibly frustrated by the process that has been undertaken by the Labour Party, but also obviously by the nature of the allegations,” she says. “I was informed in the very beginning that the allegations made were not sexual in nature. That is obviously directly counter to what is now being reported.”

So did she know Monday or a month ago?

Question Time is kicking off; JA is being asked if she stands by her statements.

I don't know the truth of the matter but those with an agenda will want to put the worst possible spin on things. The way the August 10 quote is phrased, it could just as easily be referring to a hypothetical, as in there may not be a sexual element in this instance, but if there ever was [they] would not be the appropriate place to ever undertake an investigation into something like this.

Of course it can also be read as acknowledgement that she did know there was a sexual element, but in itself it is not conclusive so those who want to read the worst into it will do precisely that.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#2315045 11-Sep-2019 14:34

GV27:

...and Bridges takes his line of questioning towards Kiwibuild for some reason, while Bennett is more muted in her questioning of the PM.

I wonder if National is acting with a hint of discretion around this? Or perhaps not seeing a need to pour any extra fuel on the fire.

Maybe National would rather not rattle a closet where they also have some skeletons.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

Mahon

473 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 214

#2315132 11-Sep-2019 16:22

Rikkitic:

GV27:

...and Bridges takes his line of questioning towards Kiwibuild for some reason, while Bennett is more muted in her questioning of the PM.

I wonder if National is acting with a hint of discretion around this? Or perhaps not seeing a need to pour any extra fuel on the fire.

Maybe National would rather not rattle a closet where they also have some skeletons.

Maybe you should have watched all of Question Time...

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2315136 11-Sep-2019 16:30

Mahon:

Maybe you should have watched all of Question Time...

Maybe some of us work during the day?

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15474

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2315141 11-Sep-2019 16:33

GV27:

Mahon:

Maybe you should have watched all of Question Time...

Maybe some of us work during the day?

She found the time to comment on the thread as we all did, during the day.

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2315147 11-Sep-2019 16:49

Checking into a thread is a different story to having a video playing on a screen or TV for an hour-long question time and the following general debate - if that's the expectation to be able to comment on the thread then I'm out.

1 | ... | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | ... | 21