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 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21

28585 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2317089 13-Sep-2019 11:36

Rikkitic:

Forget about politics for a moment. If a sexual assault occurred, this is a serious crime. So are the police investigating it? If not, why?

Yes, I asked that, but its not important it seems.

NordVPN

Protect your online activity with NordVPN (affiliate link).

tdgeek

28585 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2317091 13-Sep-2019 11:41

GV27:

The problem is you have senior government MPs being named as having known about the issues; there is a sufficient level of public interest in this for them not to just say "oh, I'm not commenting until the investigation is done" is just playing for time.

How seriously is Labour taking it? Well, the terms of reference for the investigation haven't even been set.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/115694027/complaints-about-labour-party-staffer-taken-to-his-employer

After the complainants went public, the party agreed to hire Maria Dew QC to re-investigate. The terms of reference for her inquiry are still being finalised.

They already had a disciplinary hearing about this, and decided no action would be taken. They can't just keep announcing reviews and inquiries and then deciding it absolves them of inaction or an obligation to clarify when they have potentially made misleading statements.

As for this:

Labour's acting president was a member of the panel that held an investigation earlier this year into sexual assault allegations against a Labour Party staffer.

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/labour-s-new-president-also-panel-investigated-allegations-against-staffer Yea, this is going to go swell. I ask then, at what point do you think we should be applying scrutiny? After the first investigation that did nothing? After the complaints came out in public due to the victim's experience? After the Party President insisted he didn't know, but it turns out multiple people have documentation provided to the party and have said they raised it directly with him?
After he resigned? After Labour appointed an acting President who was part of the first investigation? How many ball-drops do you put up with before you stop picking the guy with no arms as halfback?

After the complainants went public, the party agreed to hire Maria Dew QC to re-investigate.

She will give you all the answers when she finds them out. We could assume or be the court of public opinion instead? Like many political dramas before it, its important. Unlike most if not all of them this one will have an independent inquiry into it

GV27

5418 posts

Uber Geek

#2317101 13-Sep-2019 11:51

tdgeek:

After the complainants went public, the party agreed to hire Maria Dew QC to re-investigate.

She will give you all the answers when she finds them out. We could assume or be the court of public opinion instead? Like many political dramas before it, its important. Unlike most if not all of them this one will have an independent inquiry into it

Yes, and as stated, it puts a very convenient five week dampner on headlines when the issue is now as much the statements made by senior Labour officials and MPs that are in direct contradiction with information in the public domain.

Whether Labour likes it or not, having Labour MPs avoiding clarifying what they know when by playing the "oh, we'll wait for the outcomes of the investigation" is shamefully skirting around the fact this is now about integrity and fitness to lead.

Labour had their chance for 'due process'. They bottled it.

tdgeek

28585 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2317112 13-Sep-2019 12:06

GV27:

tdgeek:

After the complainants went public, the party agreed to hire Maria Dew QC to re-investigate.

She will give you all the answers when she finds them out. We could assume or be the court of public opinion instead? Like many political dramas before it, its important. Unlike most if not all of them this one will have an independent inquiry into it

Yes, and as stated, it puts a very convenient five week dampner on headlines when the issue is now as much the statements made by senior Labour officials and MPs that are in direct contradiction with information in the public domain.

Whether Labour likes it or not, having Labour MPs avoiding clarifying what they know when by playing the "oh, we'll wait for the outcomes of the investigation" is shamefully skirting around the fact this is now about integrity and fitness to lead.

Labour had their chance for 'due process'. They bottled it.

Do you feel the inquiry should be cancelled and proceed another way? We all know this wont go away. You seem to want the dagger now than get the full truth? At best there is one bad apple, he has been fired. At worse there are other major members of the party involved, that needs to be found. With all that will come out the details which will offer plenty of criticism. If you dont want the inquiry how do your propose to get the truth so integrity and fitness to lead can be known?

If Labour carried out their due process and it did not give the answer you wanted, you would not be happy. Its inherently biased, or could be.

The more I read here it seems to be a witch hunt. BUT, I cant see anyone who doesn't want the Truth, and Consequences (ha , Ive been there :-) ) no matter what it is.

GV27

5418 posts

Uber Geek

#2317121 13-Sep-2019 12:33

tdgeek:

Do you feel the inquiry should be cancelled and proceed another way? We all know this wont go away.

If Labour carried out their due process and it did not give the answer you wanted, you would not be happy. Its inherently biased, or could be.

The more I read here it seems to be a witch hunt. BUT, I cant see anyone who doesn't want the Truth, and Consequences (ha , Ive been there :-) ) no matter what it is.

I don't think they should cancel the inquiry. Having a QC-led inquiry is still absolutely the bare-minimum they could do in the current situation. A cynic might say that fits in with their approach to date.

I do think that they should be made to clarify statements they have made in public recently which have now been bought into question. If they are found not to be fit to lead in five weeks then they are not fit to lead now.

The question I have for you is: Knowing what you know now, about the apparent discrepancies between who did/didn't know and who claimed they did/didn't know, would you have been satisfied had there not been a media firestorm? Was the previous status-quo an acceptable outcome behind closed doors?

Do you think we are here because we were always going to end up here or are we only here because the media is applying heat over this?

tdgeek

28585 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2317128 13-Sep-2019 13:00

GV27:

tdgeek:

Do you feel the inquiry should be cancelled and proceed another way? We all know this wont go away.

If Labour carried out their due process and it did not give the answer you wanted, you would not be happy. Its inherently biased, or could be.

The more I read here it seems to be a witch hunt. BUT, I cant see anyone who doesn't want the Truth, and Consequences (ha , Ive been there :-) ) no matter what it is.

I don't think they should cancel the inquiry. Having a QC-led inquiry is still absolutely the bare-minimum they could do in the current situation. A cynic might say that fits in with their approach to date.

I do think that they should be made to clarify statements they have made in public recently which have now been bought into question. If they are found not to be fit to lead in five weeks then they are not fit to lead now.

The question I have for you is: Knowing what you know now, about the apparent discrepancies between who did/didn't know and who claimed they did/didn't know, would you have been satisfied had there not been a media firestorm? Was the previous status-quo an acceptable outcome behind closed doors?

Do you think we are here because we were always going to end up here or are we only here because the media is applying heat over this?

I have no issue with a media firestorm. I assume you feel as I currently support this coalition that by default I'm not happy that this is bad news? I expect all politicians to do right by NZ, and I expect idiots and liars to be outed and discarded. I probably hold more to account than some here, given how this place went quiet during the JLR debacle. I'd rather focus on facts than speculation, especially when anti Coalition reporters add their spin. I'm glad it's out, no matter whose party it is. Its big news. On GZ its HUGE news, so refer back to what Gulfa said. And go back here when JLR was in full swing, like I said there is a difference. JLR was secret squirrell till it got out, listen to the tape, etc. So was this. I want to know is it bad apples, or does it go to the PM and her team rather than just party leader and members

GV27

5418 posts

Uber Geek

#2317145 13-Sep-2019 13:42

tdgeek:

I have no issue with a media firestorm. I assume you feel as I currently support this coalition that by default I'm not happy that this is bad news? I expect all politicians to do right by NZ, and I expect idiots and liars to be outed and discarded. I probably hold more to account than some here, given how this place went quiet during the JLR debacle. I'd rather focus on facts than speculation, especially when anti Coalition reporters add their spin. I'm glad it's out, no matter whose party it is. Its big news. On GZ its HUGE news, so refer back to what Gulfa said. And go back here when JLR was in full swing, like I said there is a difference. JLR was secret squirrell till it got out, listen to the tape, etc. So was this. I want to know is it bad apples, or does it go to the PM and her team rather than just party leader and members

I suspect as much of the reason there was less of an outcry about Bridges is that it possibly confirmed somethings people already thought about National anyway.

However Ardern has aggressively (and correctly) IMO gone out of her way to position herself on the right side of history when it comes to things like #MeToo. To have senior party figures possibly running interference for sexual predators and then using the investigation triggered by their actions as cover when being queried by the media is poor; it also flies in the face of the empathetic approach Ardern went of the way to underline for the JLR saga. It's cynical.

tdgeek

28585 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2317157 13-Sep-2019 13:54

GV27:

tdgeek:

I have no issue with a media firestorm. I assume you feel as I currently support this coalition that by default I'm not happy that this is bad news? I expect all politicians to do right by NZ, and I expect idiots and liars to be outed and discarded. I probably hold more to account than some here, given how this place went quiet during the JLR debacle. I'd rather focus on facts than speculation, especially when anti Coalition reporters add their spin. I'm glad it's out, no matter whose party it is. Its big news. On GZ its HUGE news, so refer back to what Gulfa said. And go back here when JLR was in full swing, like I said there is a difference. JLR was secret squirrell till it got out, listen to the tape, etc. So was this. I want to know is it bad apples, or does it go to the PM and her team rather than just party leader and members

I suspect as much of the reason there was less of an outcry about Bridges is that it possibly confirmed somethings people already thought about National anyway.

However Ardern has aggressively (and correctly) IMO gone out of her way to position herself on the right side of history when it comes to things like #MeToo. To have senior party figures possibly running interference for sexual predators and then using the investigation triggered by their actions as cover when being queried by the media is poor; it also flies in the face of the empathetic approach Ardern went of the way to underline for the JLR saga. It's cynical.

If JA knows all and always did and got senior reps running interference to cover it up, then yes its cynical, and her career will be over as leader, as it should be

tdgeek

28585 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2317160 13-Sep-2019 13:59

GV27:

I suspect as much of the reason there was less of an outcry about Bridges is that it possibly confirmed somethings people already thought about National anyway.

Well, Bridges is devious and weak we all know that, but I don't agree with your comment. Its just her taking the high road. PR wise its a good look. We will see soon if that' her genuine persona or just good ol PR, if she is in fact directly implicated in this issue.

GV27

5418 posts

Uber Geek

#2317188 13-Sep-2019 15:03

tdgeek:

If JA knows all and always did and got senior reps running interference to cover it up, then yes its cynical, and her career will be over as leader, as it should be

JA wasn't specifically named in Parliament as knowing, but Robertson was.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12267212

Earlier today, Ardern would not be drawn on whether Finance Minister Grant Robertson had talked to her about sexual assault claims.

Robertson has also refused to say when he was told about sexual assault claims.

Complainants have claimed that Robertson was told about the claims on June 30.

Ardern would not say whether anyone else's job was on the line, saying she would wait for the review of the process and the complaints from Dew.

tdgeek

28585 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2317235 13-Sep-2019 15:18

GV27:

tdgeek:

If JA knows all and always did and got senior reps running interference to cover it up, then yes its cynical, and her career will be over as leader, as it should be

JA wasn't specifically named in Parliament as knowing, but Robertson was.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12267212

Earlier today, Ardern would not be drawn on whether Finance Minister Grant Robertson had talked to her about sexual assault claims.

Robertson has also refused to say when he was told about sexual assault claims.

Complainants have claimed that Robertson was told about the claims on June 30.

Ardern would not say whether anyone else's job was on the line, saying she would wait for the review of the process and the complaints from Dew.

If thats the case then he is in strife. What would happen if there was a secret tape that leaked? That showed us what they are really like? We can then interview them but they wont answer any questions? Thats happened before. Easy, no comment, smile and walk away, thats the low bar that these people have in public office. You would say that sexual assault is more serious that JLR. It is. But it seems that devious tape, dont want the Indian guy, an MP telling another MP who has a mental health condition to top himself, all seems to just be forgotten. Sometimes id rather see politicians make stupid errors of judgement than what we seem to have no problem with i the recent past. As you say that 5 months will help this go away. Well, we have seen that before. Politics 2018/2019 is in a sad place

Mahon

473 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2317240 13-Sep-2019 15:47

tdgeek:

GV27:

tdgeek:

If JA knows all and always did and got senior reps running interference to cover it up, then yes its cynical, and her career will be over as leader, as it should be

JA wasn't specifically named in Parliament as knowing, but Robertson was.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12267212

Earlier today, Ardern would not be drawn on whether Finance Minister Grant Robertson had talked to her about sexual assault claims.

Robertson has also refused to say when he was told about sexual assault claims.

Complainants have claimed that Robertson was told about the claims on June 30.

Ardern would not say whether anyone else's job was on the line, saying she would wait for the review of the process and the complaints from Dew.

If thats the case then he is in strife. What would happen if there was a secret tape that leaked? That showed us what they are really like? We can then interview them but they wont answer any questions? Thats happened before. Easy, no comment, smile and walk away, thats the low bar that these people have in public office. You would say that sexual assault is more serious that JLR. It is. But it seems that devious tape, dont want the Indian guy, an MP telling another MP who has a mental health condition to top himself, all seems to just be forgotten. Sometimes id rather see politicians make stupid errors of judgement than what we seem to have no problem with i the recent past. As you say that 5 months will help this go away. Well, we have seen that before. Politics 2018/2019 is in a sad place

This has nothing to do with JLR despite you trying to make out as such. This is a Labour Party issue alone as described in the title of this thread. If Robertson is telling lies about the issue then so is Ardern. If one is guilty then they both are. The way the Labour party has handled this whole sorry issue is a debacle and if they cannot handle a serious issue such as this within their own ranks, how can they expect to govern NZ. Despite what is said here, NZ will be the judge. I think this issue is far from over yet.

tdgeek

28585 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2317256 13-Sep-2019 16:18

Mahon:

This has nothing to do with JLR despite you trying to make out as such. This is a Labour Party issue alone as described in the title of this thread. If Robertson is telling lies about the issue then so is Ardern. If one is guilty then they both are. The way the Labour party has handled this whole sorry issue is a debacle and if they cannot handle a serious issue such as this within their own ranks, how can they expect to govern NZ. Despite what is said here, NZ will be the judge. I think this issue is far from over yet.

I see. Struck a nerve? Clearly so. Its useful to ensure that matters are balanced. We would not want to see one party getting an easy ride and another not, would we? Thats unfair isn't it? Its useful to compare to ensure fairness. JLR involved the leadership directly. We have yet to see if Labour leadership, as in PM etc are as evil. Currently is the Labour Party as distinct from the Labour lawmakers, elected and listed. MP's if you will. I am seeing that the attention here is exceeding elsewhere. Why is that? I just watched the grilling on live TV. No grilling. The grilling is here. So yes, JLR as an example that is not worlds apart in seriousness is a good benchmark, and its clear to see that everyone is equal but some are more equal than others.

Your comments are such that the Labour world will explode shortly, so the bar is a little distorted. Is this a serious issue? Off course it is. Clearly JLR was just a minor annoyance.

My hope is that an independent Queens Counsel Inquiry will cover everything, it will certainly cover process issues. How did that go with JLR who was suggested to kill himself, as a mental health afflicted person, by a potential lawmaker of new Zealand. But thats not relevant.

GV27

5418 posts

Uber Geek

#2317365 13-Sep-2019 19:26

I am Jack's total lack of surprise:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/115773503/labour-scandal-terms-of-reference-dont-include-initial-investigation-prompting-council-stoush

An investigation into the Labour scandal may only cover the actual sexual assault allegations - not the party's reaction to them.

The draft terms of reference for QC Maria Dew's investigation, seen by Stuff, are generally limited to the alleged sexual assault and bullying itself, not the party's process in dealing with them - which has formed a large part of the political scandal engulfing the party.

This has led to a stoush within the party over whether to approve the terms of reference, as some in the party want to prove that they handled the initial complaints appropriately, Stuff understands.

One News reported that those Terms of Reference have now been set; I can't see any corroboration one way or the other on any other outlet.

The cynic in me says this is entirely expected. The pragmatist in me think they can't possibly be this stupid.

tdgeek

28585 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2317391 13-Sep-2019 19:42

GV27:

I am Jack's total lack of surprise:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/115773503/labour-scandal-terms-of-reference-dont-include-initial-investigation-prompting-council-stoush

An investigation into the Labour scandal may only cover the actual sexual assault allegations - not the party's reaction to them.

The draft terms of reference for QC Maria Dew's investigation, seen by Stuff, are generally limited to the alleged sexual assault and bullying itself, not the party's process in dealing with them - which has formed a large part of the political scandal engulfing the party.

This has led to a stoush within the party over whether to approve the terms of reference, as some in the party want to prove that they handled the initial complaints appropriately, Stuff understands.

One News reported that those Terms of Reference have now been set; I can't see any corroboration one way or the other on any other outlet.

The cynic in me says this is entirely expected. The pragmatist in me think they can't possibly be this stupid.

Buy a different paper :-)

The live telecast today, she said on more than one occasion that it will include the process. The below is 100% incorrect.

The draft terms of reference for QC Maria Dew's investigation, seen by Stuff, are generally limited to the alleged sexual assault and bullying itself, not the party's process in dealing with them - which has formed a large part of the political scandal engulfing the party.

1 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21