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 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 21

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1974140 13-Mar-2018 17:20

freitasm: Even if at age of consent, if no consent was asked and none give the act is still unlawful and should be treated carefully. Sometimes a victim may not be in condition to consider reporting or not but it is not up to a party secretary to decide it. Parents should've been contacted Immediately.

Not if the victims were over 16. At that age, then it's up to the victim to decide whether the act was unlawful, and it's not up to anybody else to play the vigilante.

At what age do my partner and I need to be before someone else decides that a case of "wandering hands" seen by others was none of their business unless asked for help, or there was physical harm being inflicted. At what age should police informed of this not phone our parents?

Everybody is second guessing what went on, creating a huge fuss about something that may be far from what some are assuming happened.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1974141 13-Mar-2018 17:22

If you see something wrong you won't do anything then?

That's the mentality behind the Holywood cases. Everyone knew but no one ever said anything.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1974145 13-Mar-2018 17:29

freitasm: The discussion is not and should not be about age. Abuse is abuse regardless. The discussion is about a party secretary making decisions, hiding those from the Prime Minister, who is them surprised when things come out like this and is not quick enough to decide to put some people to the side until clarification is achieved.

I voted Labour and think they are wrong here.

I think that may be a valid point, but despite the second-guessed rumour of what went on, and unless one of the victims reports the incident, there's no evidence that would stand up in court that a crime was committed.

From my own second-guessing about what happened, whoever was supervising this event - where there were 15 year olds, where apparently there was booze (brought along - not supplied) should be flogged. Stupid drunk 20YO putting a hand down 16YO's pants is the consequence, I'm amazed that some people are surprised something like that could happen. Put a group of teens/young people together in a "camp" setting, allow them access to alcohol, and I'd be more surprised if something similar didn't happen - even if it was a bible class camp.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1974148 13-Mar-2018 17:34

freitasm: If you see something wrong you won't do anything then?

That's the mentality behind the Holywood cases. Everyone knew but no one ever said anything.

No I would do something, but going to the press, posting about it on facebook, calling the police would not be my first reaction or necessarily my last.

There was something more to the Weinstein cases - the victims were being coerced under threat of losing work / gaining work if they complied with a demand to have sex with a person holding considerable power over them.

I don't think drunk stupid 20YO with bad case of wandering hands is even close to what happened there.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1974155 13-Mar-2018 17:50

Fred99:

freitasm: If you see something wrong you won't do anything then?

That's the mentality behind the Holywood cases. Everyone knew but no one ever said anything.

No I would do something, but going to the press, posting about it on facebook, calling the police would not be my first reaction or necessarily my last.

There was something more to the Weinstein cases - the victims were being coerced under threat of losing work / gaining work if they complied with a demand to have sex with a person holding considerable power over them.

I don't think drunk stupid 20YO with bad case of wandering hands is even close to what happened there.

You support your precious Labour Party at any cost???I find some of your posts amazing and sad. These young people were abused and some of the abused are questioning what is being done about it.

This thread isnt about politics per-say, but rather what is right and wrong in a serious sexual abuse situation. I do not understand why you choose to respond to a lot of the contributors here negatively.

I also ask in addition to my previous post, as to why was there alcohol available at an underage function. The PM as head of the Organisation has a lot of serious questions to answer.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1974160 13-Mar-2018 18:25

Fred99:
gzt:
6FIEND: The Labour Party determined that multiple sexual assaults should not be referred to the Police, but that they could be dealt with as an internal disciplinary matter.

The article does not use those words at all. Even so, that is exactly the impression.

Looks like you feel as I do that this was an assault on minors and should have been reported to the police.

Anyone know a good reason that should not be the case? The age of majority is 18 is it not?

https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=age+of+majority+nz

The age of consent (16) is what matters in this case.

So no - it should not necessarily have been reported to police by anyone other than the alleged victims.

The affected parties were minors in the eyes of the law. Does that not imply the camp organisers had some responsibilities as guardians in loco? and therefore some responsibility to communicate with parents?

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1974167 13-Mar-2018 18:58

gzt:
Fred99:

gzt:
6FIEND: The Labour Party determined that multiple sexual assaults should not be referred to the Police, but that they could be dealt with as an internal disciplinary matter.

The article does not use those words at all. Even so, that is exactly the impression.

Looks like you feel as I do that this was an assault on minors and should have been reported to the police.

Anyone know a good reason that should not be the case? The age of majority is 18 is it not?

https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=age+of+majority+nz

The age of consent (16) is what matters in this case.

So no - it should not necessarily have been reported to police by anyone other than the alleged victims.

The affected parties were minors in the eyes of the law. Does that not imply the camp organisers had some responsibilities as guardians in loco? and therefore some responsibility to communicate with parents?

or at least NOT wait 3 weeks in order to offer counselling to those affected. Disgraceful.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1974169 13-Mar-2018 19:01

Fred99:
freitasm: If you see something wrong you won't do anything then?

That's the mentality behind the Holywood cases. Everyone knew but no one ever said anything.

No I would do something, but going to the press, posting about it on facebook, calling the police would not be my first reaction or necessarily my last.

There was something more to the Weinstein cases - the victims were being coerced under threat of losing work / gaining work if they complied with a demand to have sex with a person holding considerable power over them.

I don't think drunk stupid 20YO with bad case of wandering hands is even close to what happened there.

The incident was between the 20yo and the teenagers. It was clearly a case of abuse, the degree is somewhat irrelevant.

The labour party (namely Kirton and Woods) were privy to the situation and fully aware that it was a situation of abuse. To imply that a party that is intimately aware of the situation has no obligation to report it sets a dangerous precedent.

Put this into a whole different scenario, say a father abusing his child, and the mother being fully aware. How bad does it have to get before there is both a legal and moral obligation to bring it to the attention of the authorities?

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1974183 13-Mar-2018 19:34

Fred99:

freitasm: If you see something wrong you won't do anything then?

That's the mentality behind the Holywood cases. Everyone knew but no one ever said anything.

No I would do something, but going to the press, posting about it on facebook, calling the police would not be my first reaction or necessarily my last.

There was something more to the Weinstein cases - the victims were being coerced under threat of losing work / gaining work if they complied with a demand to have sex with a person holding considerable power over them.

I don't think drunk stupid 20YO with bad case of wandering hands is even close to what happened there.

I know of a case of a 60YO wandering hands. The person was drunk and touched a female without her consent. That was abuse.

I see no difference here.

You're defending the indefensible.

If you rather retire yourself from this discussion it would be better to do so now.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1974194 13-Mar-2018 20:11

rjt123:

Put this into a whole different scenario, say a father abusing his child, and the mother being fully aware. How bad does it have to get before there is both a legal and moral obligation to bring it to the attention of the authorities?

What has that got to do with the issue being discussed?

They're both culpable.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1974197 13-Mar-2018 20:16

freitasm:

Fred99:

freitasm: If you see something wrong you won't do anything then?

That's the mentality behind the Holywood cases. Everyone knew but no one ever said anything.

No I would do something, but going to the press, posting about it on facebook, calling the police would not be my first reaction or necessarily my last.

There was something more to the Weinstein cases - the victims were being coerced under threat of losing work / gaining work if they complied with a demand to have sex with a person holding considerable power over them.

I don't think drunk stupid 20YO with bad case of wandering hands is even close to what happened there.

I know of a case of a 60YO wandering hands. The person was drunk and touched a female without her consent. That was abuse.

I see no difference here.

You're defending the indefensible.

If you rather retire yourself from this discussion it would be better to do so now.

I'm not "defending" anything here - especially the idiot who allegedly assaulted the 16YOs -just pointing out that things may not be as clear-cut as many are suggesting, legally and also ethically for those who were aware of, or witnessed what happened.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1974212 13-Mar-2018 20:41

The discussion isnt necessarily about the idiot that did it.

It was more about what happened afterwards.

We know a lot of alcohol was involved and consumed by all

We know this has happened before under the same labour management

We know they didnt advise the PM

We know it took 3 weeks before they did anything about counselling or anything else.

A lot of us would prefer to see the Police involved so those affected will get the help they deserve.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1974220 13-Mar-2018 20:58

Pumpedd:

The discussion isnt necessarily about the idiot that did it.

It was more about what happened afterwards.

We know a lot of alcohol was involved and consumed by all

We know this has happened before under the same labour management

We know they didnt advise the PM

We know it took 3 weeks before they did anything about counselling or anything else.

A lot of us would prefer to see the Police involved so those affected will get the help they deserve.

I'm not going to argue with you - I basically agree.

Even if there's no complaint about the alleged sexual assaults, I'd like to see police investigate supply of alcohol to minors at that camp. They don't need to be notified by a complainant to investigate that.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1974223 13-Mar-2018 21:03

Fred99:
rjt123:

Put this into a whole different scenario, say a father abusing his child, and the mother being fully aware. How bad does it have to get before there is both a legal and moral obligation to bring it to the attention of the authorities?

What has that got to do with the issue being discussed?

They're both culpable.

In which case Kirton, Woods the offender and anyone else who knew was culpable too and therefore should have advised the appropriate people too.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1974230 13-Mar-2018 21:16

rjt123:
Fred99:

rjt123:

Put this into a whole different scenario, say a father abusing his child, and the mother being fully aware. How bad does it have to get before there is both a legal and moral obligation to bring it to the attention of the authorities?

What has that got to do with the issue being discussed?

They're both culpable.

In which case Kirton, Woods the offender and anyone else who knew was culpable too and therefore should have advised the appropriate people too.

Whoosh.

That was what the headline suggested a few hours ago, in the heat of the moment - prior to some expert input and time for reflection.

Take a look at the NZ Herald website front page now, and the entire story has disappeared. We love to flay the media here (often me included), but I do believe they "get it" eventually sometimes in terms of responsible journalism when they thought they had the scoop of the century - but on reflection it probably wasn't.

Meanwhile I've been accused of being a "blind labour supporter" (which I'm not) and an apologist for people who commit sexual assault (which I'm not). Ever.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 21