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 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | ... | 21

18694 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7830

Lifetime subscriber

#1978617 16-Mar-2018 13:25

6FIEND:
It's sadly predictable to see Labour's EPMU influence being put to good use at the NZHerald today...

This is how the alleged offending is now being portrayed:

A drunken yobbo falling over four 16-year-olds and being deeply remorseful and unable to remember the groping the next day isn't something you'd expect the Prime Minister to have to be fronting up to the nation on

Barry Soper is the political editor of 1ZB News. That's about as far from the EPMU as you can get. Other than that - what the hell? Unbelievable.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1978620 16-Mar-2018 13:28

gzt:
6FIEND:

It's sadly predictable to see Labour's EPMU influence being put to good use at the NZHerald today...

This is how the alleged offending is now being portrayed:

A drunken yobbo falling over four 16-year-olds and being deeply remorseful and unable to remember the groping the next day isn't something you'd expect the Prime Minister to have to be fronting up to the nation on

Barry Soper is the political editor of 1ZB News. That's about as far from the EPMU as you can get. Other than that yeah what an idiot. Unbelievable.

I don't think that would stop them applying pressure. It's disgraceful someone with such obvious leanings (In either direction in case it should appear I only have an issue for left leaning) should be in charge of political reporting at a national broadcaster.

gzt

18694 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7830

Lifetime subscriber

#1978624 16-Mar-2018 13:35

I would think the EPMU would be rapidly toasted by their own people if they started saying stuff like that. I can't see they would have anything to do with it. Quite the opposite actually.

Edit: toasted as in burned to a crisp in case there is any doubt.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 589
Inactive user

#1978636 16-Mar-2018 13:51

@gzt - fair call. I was drawing that bow because the article was published in the Herald.

gzt

18694 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7830

Lifetime subscriber

#1978972 17-Mar-2018 11:04

Fred99: They weren't minors as far as consent goes, so unless they reported the incident themselves to police, they generally won't act to prosecute.

The spirit of this comment is basically wrong and deserves correction. In all cases the police are able to begin an investigation on any information provided by anyone.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1979043 17-Mar-2018 15:47

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12014681

Sacking isn't an option. This said by the leader of our country before all the facts are in and the investigation is completed. Sounds reasoned and like she is being transparent and accountable.

If anything she should be a lot harder to show that she won't tolerate this type of thing going on in her Government. This feels very much like the Greens and MT.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#1979250 18-Mar-2018 08:46

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12013908

Interesting take on the scandal...

"The battle in my view is between party president Nigel Haworth and the Prime Minister.

In the Labour Party, the party president has as much power as the Prime Minister. This is one of the quirks of the party. The president has enough power to force Labour MPs to follow his instructions by passing party rules.

When MPs get badly out of line, the president's part of the party deals with the discipline. Not the Prime Minister."

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#1979278 18-Mar-2018 12:40

Whats more interesting is the deal Greens have done with National during question time in Parliament. Shows even Greens are finding Labour extremely weak.

Deal

Labour has shown some quite bad leadership this weak with the Abuse issue and also over the delay in announcing support for the UK over the Russian issue. It seems Winnie couldn't decide so Jacinda had to come in over top of him.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#1979359 18-Mar-2018 15:43

Pumpedd:
Whats more interesting is the deal Greens have done with National during question time in Parliament. Shows even Greens are finding Labour extremely weak.

Deal

Labour has shown some quite bad leadership this weak with the Abuse issue and also over the delay in announcing support for the UK over the Russian issue. It seems Winnie couldn't decide so Jacinda had to come in over top of him.

The greens certainly have matured a fair bit. Good move, clever politically bit also useful.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 589
Inactive user

#1979984 19-Mar-2018 16:46

...there's one particular aspect to this incident that is puzzling me most of all:

If Labour's rationale for not informing the victims parents, the Police, or even the Leader of their Party (and PM) about the four incidents of alleged sexual assault at the Young Labour Camp in February was because they had decided to adopt a "victim-led" approach.

Then why were the victims who were allegedly leading the approach reaching out to senior Labour MPs on Facebook because the Labour Party weren't supporting them or even returning their calls/emails?

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1979998 19-Mar-2018 16:56

6FIEND:

...there's one particular aspect to this incident that is puzzling me most of all:

If Labour's rationale for not informing the victims parents, the Police, or even the Leader of their Party (and PM) about the four incidents of alleged sexual assault at the Young Labour Camp in February was because they had decided to adopt a "victim-led" approach.

Then why were the victims who were allegedly leading the approach reaching out to senior Labour MPs on Facebook because the Labour Party weren't supporting them or even returning their calls/emails?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12015765

In this long article there is a very very good question related to this comment you made, and I'll quote a quote of a quote:

Murphy's main point is worth quoting at length, beginning with the issue of Andrew Kirton not contacting relevant parties when the story was about to break: "Before the issue became public on Monday, he had a number of hours to contact the Prime Minister and/or the victims, before the story was published. He did not do so. He claimed on John Campbell's Checkpoint programme that evening that Labour had offered for the victims to go to the police. By Wednesday he was retracting, saying the party had not been clear on that to the victims. He claimed the victims had been talked to about raising it with parents. That too is in dispute. He claimed professional advice was sought, implying that was soon after the assaults. The advice was sought weeks later. Offers of counselling were made only last Saturday night. The unravelling of the initial defence does not suggest the general secretary, President or party apparatus was as supportive of the victims as it claims. There were weeks without contact. What came was too little, too late."

So, was Labour largely putting its own political interests ahead of the victims? That's how veteran political journalist John Armstrong reads it, saying "Keeping everyone in the dark also suited Labour's best interests" – see: Jacinda Ardern looked like she was no longer in control during Labour's week from hell.

Armstrong says: "In its inept handling of this dreadful episode, Labour justifiably stands accused of putting self-interest and political convenience ahead of the welfare of the victims of the alleged assaults."

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#1980009 19-Mar-2018 17:14

Parliament resumes Tuesday, so we shall what comes out of question time. I still say this is a shocker where Labour treated the situation badly then tried to cover up by lying. Heads need to roll and I am for the first time thinking Jacinda should not feel safe.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1980011 19-Mar-2018 17:18

As a parent, I do NOT subscribe to the victim first mentality if the victim is under 17 years old.The more I think of it the more angry I get and the more wrong I feel it is. Regardless of the law (and how it relates to this prescribed theory) they have chosen to follow, I don't think a 16 year old (who maybe able to decide if *consensual* sex is ok for them), can or should cope with a sexual assault on their without the support of their parent. I do accept there are some parents that would be poor choices for support, but on the balance, I still think the vast majority of parents could provide positive assistance. If not a parent, an *adult* of the childs choosing perhaps.

To be honest I feel sick that there are 16 year old children in this country who may have opted not to tell their parent(s) about this and may have tried to deal with it on their own. To be this seems criminally wrong. I cannot at this juncture, conceive of any damage telling a parent about a sexual assault, that would be worse than the potential harm said child trying to manage this process themselves.

In my view, Labour handled it this way (Victim first) because it fit with the actions (or in this case, lack of action) already undertaken. They have essentially retroactively found a way to "justify" their handling of the matter.

I don't believe there is any action the parent could take against Labour (legally) for handling it this way, but it feels like they should be able to. I'd certainly want to.

Jacinda Adern should have taken this opportunity to come out strongly against the actions taken, and shown real leadership. She should have shouted about it and entirely condemned the entire thing. Those who were party to it should have been immediately suspended pending the results of the investigation and dependant on results handed out strong and clear penalties to those who were involved, then stood up in front of the country and an apologised.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1980014 19-Mar-2018 17:21

Pumpedd:

Heads need to roll and I am for the first time thinking Jacinda should not feel safe.

I am sincerely hoping you mean politically.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#1980027 19-Mar-2018 17:37

networkn:
6FIEND:

...there's one particular aspect to this incident that is puzzling me most of all:

If Labour's rationale for not informing the victims parents, the Police, or even the Leader of their Party (and PM) about the four incidents of alleged sexual assault at the Young Labour Camp in February was because they had decided to adopt a "victim-led" approach.

Then why were the victims who were allegedly leading the approach reaching out to senior Labour MPs on Facebook because the Labour Party weren't supporting them or even returning their calls/emails?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12015765

In this long article there is a very very good question related to this comment you made, and I'll quote a quote of a quote:

And from that article:

"...the Dominion Post editorial claims that Labour's reference to a victim-led approach is "possibly just a little convenient"...."

But what really bugs me is people calling it 'progressive'

"One newspaper editorial is scathing of Labour's progressive approach, suggesting it is out of sync with the current climate of openness about sexual misconduct, and parents, police, and the PM should have been informed"

'Progressive' implies a forward step, a improvment, a better way of doing something. Calling this approach progressive might appeal to the " trendy urban liberals" but its a farce and that's the reality of who she is. It all very well to say she represents generational change, but is this the culture of change we want the oncoming generation to adopt? One where any immoral outrage can be permitted in the name of progression?

In the other 'jacinda' thread there was discussion about alcohol abuse. I think there was generally consensus that NZ's drinking culture needs to change, but why don't we just label it 'progressive' and move on? Who gets to decide on what's right in that scenario? Shouldn't it be the younger generation?

I think we need to seriously consider how many old-fashioned values should be discarded in the name of progression? If this labour scandal is any indication then maybe old-fashioned principles, like the place and rights of parents, might not be so archaic after all.

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | ... | 21