How can they say he has broken his silence when he has been talking almost non stop since he started this mess?

GV27:

 

I'm being accused of misrepresenting something when the tweet is there, in black and white, from a senior reporter, saying a caucus meeting took place, along with snide comments about 'making things up'. 

 

I want my apology.

 

You quoted from the Herald which described the meeting as a Zoom meeting but actually said:

"Journalists have already confirmed that a Caucus meeting took place last night without Sharma".

In the very next post you yourself quoted the PM:

"It does not constitute a full caucus unless everyone is invited" and this definition of caucus tallies with the wikipedia reference. 

To misrepresent is to give a false account so yes, by describing the meeting as a caucus meeting you meet the definition and have misrepresented it.

It wasn't a snide remark , it was an exhortation to keep to the facts. 

According to the Herald last night, his fate was supposedly effectively decided the night prior at the not-caucus (but effectively a caucus) meeting. I don't think that falls under acting in good faith. 

We can only speculate because not all the facts are known or are likely to ever come out, in some ways reasonably given this is an employment issue, though he himself seems to be quite happy to talk about it. Labour are in a difficult position in that they are bound by privacy making it somewhat difficult to 'prove' their side, though I would guess there would be some leeway given if the person making the accusations has done so publically and wonder if some automatic waiving of privacy rights applies. 

My personal take on this is that there has been fault on both sides, and that Sharma has probably developed an oversensitivity to this issue. Having said that, he does raise a reasonable point that in almost any other work environment, his request to be investigated would never be declined, and it doesn't feel right to me that they have refused (and this hasn't been disputed by Arden either). I can't think of many reasons to decline a request of this nature. 

networkn:

 

According to the Herald last night, his fate was supposedly effectively decided the night prior at the not-caucus (but effectively a caucus) meeting. I don't think that falls under acting in good faith. 

 

We can only speculate because not all the facts are known or are likely to ever come out, in some ways reasonably given this is an employment issue, though he himself seems to be quite happy to talk about it. Labour are in a difficult position in that they are bound by privacy making it somewhat difficult to 'prove' their side, though I would guess there would be some leeway given if the person making the accusations has done so publically and wonder if some automatic waiving of privacy rights applies. 

 

My personal take on this is that there has been fault on both sides, and that Sharma has probably developed an oversensitivity to this issue. Having said that, he does raise a reasonable point that in almost any other work environment, his request to be investigated would never be declined, and it doesn't feel right to me that they have refused (and this hasn't been disputed by Arden either). I can't think of many reasons to decline a request of this nature. 

 

 

 

 

 

I would think natural justice would conclude that if Sharma is prepared to instigate matters in the public arena, he should be prepared for all the dirty laundry to be aired in the public arena, can't have it both ways.

"Bullying" in the workplace is almost as commonly used as "being offended". Sometimes its legitimate, othertimes its used by over sensitive prima-donnas who aren't used to pressure environments where results are expected and excuses simply don't wash. I would imagine politics is very much like this, voters don't want someone spouting off why things haven't worked, they want solutions and a clear pathway to a result.

That the demands of a job are in excess of someones expectations doesn't mean that bullying has necessarily occurred, just that a persons performance hasn't met the requirements of the role.

networkn: Having said that, he does raise a reasonable point that in almost any other work environment, his request to be investigated would never be declined, and it doesn't feel right to me that they have refused (and this hasn't been disputed by Arden either). I can't think of many reasons to decline a request of this nature.

sen8or:

 

I would think natural justice would conclude that if Sharma is prepared to instigate matters in the public arena, he should be prepared for all the dirty laundry to be aired in the public arena, can't have it both ways.

 

That seems reasonable, I am not just not sure the legality around that.

 

"Bullying" in the workplace is almost as commonly used as "being offended". Sometimes its legitimate, othertimes its used by over sensitive prima-donnas who aren't used to pressure environments where results are expected and excuses simply don't wash. I would imagine politics is very much like this, voters don't want someone spouting off why things haven't worked, they want solutions and a clear pathway to a result.

 

That the demands of a job are in excess of someones expectations doesn't mean that bullying has necessarily occurred, just that a persons performance hasn't met the requirements of the role.

 

That's true, but in all situations, you'd expect the employer to investigate complaints from both sides. 

Also, whilst I feel he is mostly to blame here, the facts aren't clear enough to make a proper determination with certainty and again, an investigation is how to resolve that.

elpenguino:

 

To misrepresent is to give a false account so yes, by describing the meeting as a caucus meeting you meet the definition and have misrepresented it.

 

It wasn't a snide remark , it was an exhortation to keep to the facts. 

 

...and I have posted a tweet in which a journalist confirmed a caucus meeting took place. 

You accused me of misrepresenting something - I cannot misrepresent something that is ultimately the truth if there are reliable sources to back it up. 

So once again. Where is my apology? 

E: Oh, your biggest problem is I'm not taking the PM's word as gospel when it comes to whether a caucus meeting took place. Golly, who do I trust here, the leader of the party of the political party embroiled in a scandal about whether a full caucus meeting took place, or the senior political journalist? 

I can't possibly imagine why one of these sources might be neutral on this. Can you? 

If your basis for calling me a liar is purely partisan then that's pretty pathetic. 

Like everyone else speculating here, I have no special knowledge of this situation. My own feeling is that I mainly agree with @sen8or's comments. Sharma doesn't come across to me as entirely credible, but I can't specify why. My guess would be that he had some complaints initially, which may have had at least some justification, but he went off the deep end when they were not treated seriously enough. Apart from the fact that I am a fan of the PM, it just doesn't make sense to me that she would behave as accused. She is more politically astute than that. 

Labour is probably limited in what they can say, so isn't able to mount a full defense. Sharma is free to spout off however he likes. I don't see the meeting that excluded him as a problem. It wasn't a 'caucus' meeting because the entire caucus was not invited to participate. Sharma was probably excluded because he would have been too disruptive and his colleagues needed to discuss the issue without his interjections. I don't see a problem with that. The next day there was a caucus meeting and he was invited to make his case, which he declined. 

elpenguino: Details matter. Let's not make stuff up.

gzt: 
GV27 has clearly obtained and shown that information was obtained from the Twitter account of a respected journalist. GV27 clearly did not make that up.

That information itself may be formally wrong or right. There is clearly some discussion about that. That is a different issue.

I'm over it, I won't bother derailing this thread any more considering this is actively unfolding and likely to have more developments today/tomorrow (whenever Newshub Nation screens I'm guessing).

Newsroom has a (satirical) piece on this too: https://www.newsroom.co.nz/yesterdaze-from-off-piste-to-piste-off

I'm just waiting for tomorrow for Steve Braunias's weekly column.

GV27:

 

elpenguino:

 

To misrepresent is to give a false account so yes, by describing the meeting as a caucus meeting you meet the definition and have misrepresented it.

 

It wasn't a snide remark , it was an exhortation to keep to the facts. 

 

 

...and I have posted a tweet in which a journalist confirmed a caucus meeting took place. 

 

You accused me of misrepresenting something - I cannot misrepresent something that is ultimately the truth if there are reliable sources to back it up. 

 

So once again. Where is my apology? 

 

E: Oh, your biggest problem is I'm not taking the PM's word as gospel when it comes to whether a caucus meeting took place. Golly, who do I trust here, the leader of the party of the political party embroiled in a scandal about whether a full caucus meeting took place, or the senior political journalist? 

 

I can't possibly imagine why one of these sources might be neutral on this. Can you? 

 

If your basis for calling me a liar is purely partisan then that's pretty pathetic. 

 

Jesus take a chill pill. No one called you a liar, you've made that up.

In the interests of keeping the discussion fact based, I provided a reference (not merely a quote). 

If you're going to remain wilfully impervious to facts, logic  and references, it's actually you who should apologise.

elpenguino:

 

Jesus take a chill pill. No one called you a liar, you've made that up.

 

In the interests of keeping the discussion fact based, I provided a reference (not merely a quote). 

 

If you're going to remain wilfully impervious to facts, logic  and references, it's actually you who should apologise.

 

People get mad when you accuse them of making things up, which you did, on multiple occassions. 

I've provided references for what I asserted, they did not matter to you then. So I will take your moral high-ground of facts and logic with a near-lethal dose of salt, if it's all the same.

Rikkitic:

 

Like everyone else speculating here, I have no special knowledge of this situation. My own feeling is that I mainly agree with @sen8or's comments. Sharma doesn't come across to me as entirely credible, but I can't specify why. My guess would be that he had some complaints initially, which may have had at least some justification, but he went off the deep end when they were not treated seriously enough. Apart from the fact that I am a fan of the PM, it just doesn't make sense to me that she would behave as accused. She is more politically astute than that. 

 

Labour is probably limited in what they can say, so isn't able to mount a full defense. Sharma is free to spout off however he likes. I don't see the meeting that excluded him as a problem. It wasn't a 'caucus' meeting because the entire caucus was not invited to participate. Sharma was probably excluded because he would have been too disruptive and his colleagues needed to discuss the issue without his interjections. I don't see a problem with that. The next day there was a caucus meeting and he was invited to make his case, which he declined. 

 

 

 

Behind a paywall, but this does make for an interesting take on the other side of this argument. 

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/heather-du-plessis-allan-gaurav-sharma-why-labour-should-have-held-an-inquiry/JEDVM2A56X5OWV2ERBKEUIFYQY/

Shortly, Sharma will be released from the Labour Party, and at that point, I expect to see more about this and other stuff. 

The OIA stuff is worrying in my view (I totally wouldn't rule this out, as earlier in thier first term there were questions raised about it) , even more than their refusal to investigate Sharmas claims which seem odd to the extreme. 

The article mentions that unlike other people who have broken ranks with their party acting fidgety and wild (Jamie Ross etc), Sharma has been pretty calm during interviews. He seems to have some evidence to back up his claims and at least some of his claims haven't been refuted.