Gayford fake smears exposed

So after months of hints and suggestions and insinuations that grew into some very specific accusations, the ‘rumours’ about Clarke Gayford have been exposed as dirty smears with no evidence.

The media had chosen to stay quiet on the rumours until David Fisher from NZH investigated, found there was no substance at all, and exposed the fact there was no evidence whatsoever of a police investigation. This was quickly confirmed by the police themselves who took the very unusual step of putting out a press release.

NZH – False Clarke Gayford rumours: Police and PM Jacinda Ardern respond to widely circulated fake slurs

Jacinda Ardern’s partner Clarke Gayford has been under an unprecedented assault of baseless rumour and false innuendo with the apparent intent of dragging down the Prime Minister.

For the past seven months, Gayford has been the subject – on social media and via word of mouth – of untrue allegations and accusations.

The sheer scale and nature of the claims have led to Police Commissioner Mike Bush taking the extraordinary step of signing off a media release that rejects the speculation.

The Police National Headquarters statement said: “While in general we do not respond to enquiries which seek to confirm if individuals are under police investigation, on this occasion we can say that Mr Gayford is not and has not been the subject of any police inquiry, nor has he been charged in relation to any matter.”

This is very clear: “Mr Gayford is not and has not been the subject of any police inquiry, nor has he been charged in relation to any matter.”

Other media then reported the story, saying they had all heard the rumours but had chosen to not go public so as not to give any airing of claims that were baseless. Aided by a letter from Gayford’s lawyers warning that if any details of the allegations were publicised they would be treated as defamatory all that has been reported is the fact that that smears had been circulating.

A lawyer for Gayford has also written to some media warning that the unidentified rumours are defamatory – and publishing the allegations “is actionable.”

The letter is signed by Linda Clark, a former TVNZ political editor, who now works as a lawyer at Kensington Swan.

“The allegations (which the NZ Herald did not publish) are untrue and defamatory. The story included a statement from the NZ Police that Mr Gayford is not and has not been the subject of any police inquiry.

“We draw your attention to this for the purpose of putting you on notice that any publication of the substance of the allegations regarding Mr Gayford will result in proceedings being filed immediately.”

While I didn’t receive this letter (I know of one blogger who did) but it is a warning to anyone against publishing any details of the accusations here.

There are often rumours floating around, but I think the Gayford smears had to be exposed as such, they had been circulating and growing with embellishment for so long. NZH handled it very well – in fact their investigation probably prompted  the police to issue their statement.

Gayford said he did not want to comment.

Jacinda Ardern was inevitably asked to respond, and she had little choice to say something.

The Prime Minister told the Herald: “I won’t comment on dirty politics. It’s just not what I’m here for.”

Ardern stopped briefly on her way into a parliamentary event today to speak to media.

She said she had nothing further to say.

“This is not why I’m here, this is not why I’m in politics, and I’ve got a job to do and I’m going to do it.”

She did not respond to a question about whether she thought it was dirty politics.

But having mentioned ‘dirty politics’ this precipitated online accusations from many, including people with close associations with Labour and the Greens, suggesting that ‘dirty politics’ means that National must have been involved – more ‘rumours’ without and evidence. I have also seen some claims that Labour had a plan to link the Gayford rumours to ‘dirty politics’=National, but again, no evidence of this.

Winston Peters deserves a special mention. He has made insinuations without any evidence – as I think is is a common tactic from him. I think this is deplorable dirty opportunism. If he has evidence he should front up (he often doesn’t), otherwise he should act like a deputy prime minister, not a smarmy smearer.

I have seen no indication or evidence that the National Party played any part in starting or spreading the rumours (and I would be very surprised and shocked if they were). Some people linked to National did mention the rumours, but I think that was likely to be because they believed the rumours may be at least partly true so should be publicised rather than being a deliberate campaign to smear.

One of those who published material on social media did not respond to a request for comment.

The other said he did not monitor comments on posts because it was too time consuming. He was unaware such allegations had been made in comments on his posts.

He said morally and legally a person could not be held accountable “for something on a forum for something they did not see”.

But he said he had an obligation, once alerted to improper comment, to take action and would remove defamatory or offensive comments. He was aware of the false rumours, he said.

It will be obvious to some who these sites refer to, but people who don’t know have no reason to know.

Both may have also got the Kensington Swan letter, or something similar.

The first one who didn’t respond did post a non-prominent comment warning against posting defamatory comments yesterday morning, and there was little discussion and I think no posts on the story. They must have been aware of the false rumours as they had been hinted on in posts and had come up in comments, and on that site comments are closely monitored and strictly moderated (when it suits them).

‘The other’ posted a prominent post warning against potentially defamatory comments. There was quite a bit of comment on the story on one thread, with some blatantly trying to suggest what the false accusations related to (this was quickly deleted) and trying to cast doubt on the story – there’s been a few ‘where there’s smoke there’s fire’ sort of nonsense.  Comments on this site are very lightly moderated and not generally monitored, and I think it’s quite feasible that the blog manager was not aware of the accusations being posted.

There is some interest in trying to work out where the smears came from. I am aware of the starts of this going back to last October – it appears that they started as fairly general slurs and insinuations and got more specific as time went on.

There was a lot of activity on Twitter pushing the story. This may have been coordinated to some extent but I think it was more likely that it was opportunistic jumping on a bashwagon, in the main at least.

Attempts have been made to seed the story here (as opposed to regulars here referring to the rumours). I have moderated any mentions of the rumours without evidence for a couple of reasons – to protect this site against legal action, and it is a site requirement that any accusations of this sort, or of any political smears or attacks, must be supported by evidence.

Dirty rumours often appear and some circulate for a while in small circles. This incident or campaign one was different – in the length of time they continued, in the way they became more specific, and in the serious nature of unfounded accusations.

Whether by deliberate design or growing opportunistic legs it appears to some degree to have been a deliberate attempt to damage the prime Minister and the Government, and this should be condemned in any decent democracy and country.

I believe people/persons with a history of online smears and attacks have at least repeated the smears from early on. They are not connected to any political party that I’m aware of.

I’m aware that some are investigating, trying to find out who started and promoted the stories as a possibly deliberate smear campaign aimed at harming the Prime Minister and the Government. I think that exposure of any sort of dirty smearing would be a good thing, it is an insidious assault on decent democracy.


NOTICE

As far as I’ve seen comments on this story here yesterday respected the legal situation. Thanks, and for now at least I’ll leave comments open here as long as everyone continues in a responsible way.

Please do not try to even hint at the nature of the accusations here. Any comment that I feel breaches this may be deleted in whole. If there are any risks to this site I may shut down comments on this thread.

Leave a comment

166 Comments

  1. Blazer

     /  May 3, 2018

    [Deleted – as will any dirty attempts to smear anyone or any party here. PG]

    Reply
  2. Gezza

     /  May 3, 2018

    The letter is signed by Linda Clark, a former TVNZ political editor, who now works as a lawyer at Kensington Swan.

    Just as an aside at this point, in relation to my recent observations about tvnz’s appallingly liteweight political reporting for some years now, I do remember Linda Clark’s time as the political editor for TV One.

    She was a smart cookie who knew what she was talking, about in contrast to the breathless infotainment gigglers & shriekers we’ve had to put up with of late.

    Reply
  3. Blazer

     /  May 3, 2018

    If I got burgled and my neighbour had recently been in prison for …burglary,it would be quite natural for me to suspect him of it …would it…not?

    Reply
    • Gerrit

       /  May 3, 2018

      No.

      Reply
    • Gezza

       /  May 3, 2018

      Yes but if he hadn’t done the burglary & you had reported him to the police as the perp or almost certainly the perp they might show you the door & issue you with a rude letter if you persisted?

      Reply
    • It may be human nature to suspect him, but it would be reprehensible to spread rumours that he had done it without any evidence.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  May 3, 2018

        any idea why they find it hard to place paroled sex offendors in the…community.

        Reply
        • mrscooter

           /  May 4, 2018

          Sex offenders are different, especially child molesters. Once they have a “taste” for such things, nothing else satisfies them. They are wired and born differently. You can no more change them than you can change a black man into a white man,( Michael Jackson excluded.)

          Reply
      • Yet that is exactly what your post is attempting to do, ie spread the rumour that a hinted at party is behind the rumours and you are attempting to smearing them in a weasely manner with innuendo without any evidence! You really take the cake Pete.

        Reply
        • You’re making some curious (and inaccurate) assertions here. Your overreaction seems a tad touchy.

          You throwing around accusations of attempted smearing is what really takes the cake SB.

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  May 3, 2018

            The story is whiskery and wasn’t printed here, Spanish. I have not been given the impression that any party was behind it.

            Reply
  4. NOEL

     /  May 3, 2018

    Must admit I haven’t a clue what the unsubstantiated gossip is about so I was interested in you mediation not to have it published here. Now that it’s been found to be baseless I congratulate you on your stance.
    But i do wish someone would publish so deformation by social media can be tested in the courts.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  May 3, 2018

      I would certainly like to see anyone running a blog who deformed someone taken to court.

      However if the victim was in fact someone who was actually deforming themself then I doubt they would have a leg to stand on.

      Like someone who was getting all bent out of shape on here very, very recently. (No names though.)

      Reply
      • Griff

         /  May 3, 2018

        defamation
        ˌdɛfəˈmeɪʃ(ə)n/
        noun
        noun: defamation; plural noun: defamations

        the action of damaging the good reputation of someone; slander or libel.
        “she sued him for defamation”

        deformation
        ˌdiːfɔːˈmeɪʃ(ə)n/
        noun
        noun: deformation

        the action or process of deforming or distorting.
        “solid rock undergoing slow deformation”

        Reply
      • NOEL

         /  May 3, 2018

        Yeah sorry defamation. Better go back to specsavers for a stronger pair of glasses.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  May 3, 2018

          😀 😉

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  May 3, 2018

            I had heard the story about the police statement. but didn’t realise that that was the one to do with the rumours as it was so long ago,

            Reply
  5. Blazer

     /  May 3, 2018

    The Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand was asked who he thought was responsible,his answer was quite unequivocal….’the people who would gain the most advantage’.

    Reply
    • Which is a stupid comment from Peters.

      I think that those behind the smears are likely to gain little regardless of the outcome of any smear campaign.

      Peters was doing his best to smear without having the guts to be specific or front up with evidence. In my mind that is dirty politics, long practiced by Peters.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  May 3, 2018

        so you think it o.k to smear Peters and are indulging in the very same ‘dirty politics’…you find ..reprehensible!

        Reply
        • Holding a politician to account for dirty insinuations is not smearing – I note you haven’t argued any points, you just tried to attack me.

          Reply
          • Blazer

             /  May 3, 2018

            your so called ‘points’ are certainly not facts,just your assumptions/opinion.

            Reply
            • It is a fact that Peters made insinuations without substantiating with facts. It is a fact that this is a common practice of his.

            • Blazer

               /  May 3, 2018

              insinuations are …subjective as you well…know.

      • PartisanZ

         /  May 3, 2018

        I reckon “the people who would gain the most advantage” is a statement of unequivocal, unconditional political fact, untainted in any way …

        @PG – “I think that those behind the smears are likely to gain little …”

        Depends what they see as “gain”? … Perhaps the Right Brigade’s numbers have swelled from 1100 to 1105 as a result? They might look upon this quite positively?

        A 0.45% increase in their numbers is possibly quite ‘good’ for them considering they represent 0.03% of the voting-age population …

        Reply
    • The Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand was asked who he thought was responsible,his answer was quite unequivocal….’the people who would gain the most advantage

      Naturally, one wonders who would possibly gain from the allegations were the current Prime Minister required to stand down in order to deal with personal matters. Who could possibly fill that role?

      Reply
      • PartisanZ

         /  May 3, 2018

        A canny point well scored admiral …

        It is kinda like a game of ‘Battleships’ isn’t it?

        Reply
      • Blazer

         /  May 3, 2018

        it has been signalled that the P.M will be taking some leave this year due to her pregnancy….who is responsible for…that!

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  May 3, 2018

          Give Blazer a book about the facts of life.

          Pete, I thought that WP’s answer was one of those that he imagined would be right whoever it was, and that he was trying to sound as if he knew.

          Reply
  6. artcroft

     /  May 3, 2018

    You’re the one doing the smearing Blazer, so I guess it must have been you. Not a surprise actually.

    Reply
  7. Griff

     /  May 3, 2018

    I have taken no notice of the rubbish besides noting that PG deleted a few comments from some who I view as susceptible to repeating rubbish. All they have succeeded in doing is to reinforce my lack of respect for their opinions.

    I view the relationship between Clark and Jacinda as not relevant to politics.
    Clark is a nobody as far as I am concerned and attacking him has no effect on how I view the present goverment .

    We are well past the time when a relationship outside of wedlock was viewed as immoral and the epithet bastard had any standing. .
    The few commenters that have pushed such a view should be treated with the upmost disdain.

    Reply
    • duperez

       /  May 3, 2018

      For you we are well past the time when a relationship outside of wedlock being viewed as immoral. I have seen comments (not on here) which show that for some it isn’t. Not only that, they then take it further by attacking the PM about it and use it as a sign of unfitness for office. The PM’s domestic situation is just another handy thing to batter her about.

      Reply
      • sorethumb

         /  May 3, 2018

        I think if you are having children you should have made a long term commitment. If you don’t marry the woman you are a cad. Children need stability into adulthood.

        Reply
        • sorethumb

           /  May 3, 2018

          The aim is to find a soulmate.

          Reply
          • PartisanZ

             /  May 3, 2018

            Well … Yes … and perhaps half the problem is ‘the aim is to find a soulmate’?

            Maybe soulmates can grow each other and grow together?

            Reply
          • Conspiratoor

             /  May 3, 2018

            Hair splitting i know but I disagree. It is possible to provide children with stability and more, into adulthood …without the presence of a ‘soulmate’. This implies two people who share the same soul, in my experience a very rare phenomenon. I could go on but I’ll stop there

            Reply
        • Griff

           /  May 3, 2018

          This has been sitting on this tab un posted for half an hour as I pursed other blogs with more more interesting discussions.

          Unfortunately I have seen comments on here about their relationship and the status of their coming child hence the comment directed at such smegwits.

          QED.

          There is no correlation between nations with high rates of births outside of wedlock and social outcomes.
          The Scandinavian country’s have the highest ranking for positive social outcomes and also rate highly for number of birth out side of wedlock.
          https://www.oecd.org/els/family/SF_2_4_Share_births_outside_marriage.pdf

          Reply
        • duperez

           /  May 3, 2018

          What’s a ‘long term commitment? An arrangement genuinely made for the long term which in reality ends up to be transitory? Lots of people make a long term commitment in marriage and end up separated.
          I agree that it’s best for everyone if children are part of a long term commitment (that lasts) and that children need stability into adulthood. For some those don’t count unless there’s a marriage licence.
          Some of the stuff I’ve seen about Ms Arden being pregnant and not married are at the level of “she’s not married, she’s pregnant, she’s going to Hell.”

          To be fair to the religious beliefs of those people, I think their main thought for her deserving Hell is that she’s Prime Minister.

          Reply
  8. Gezza

     /  May 3, 2018

    I would just like to point out that I made it very clear I did not believe these rumours & believe I am thus entitled to be acknowledged as having signalled my virtue virtuously.

    Reply
    • PartisanZ

       /  May 3, 2018

      Virtuously Gezza … and early … Pre-cognizant virtue signalling almost?

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  May 3, 2018

        Gezza, PCV.
        I’m liking it, PZ. 👍🏼

        Watch put Shaneo I’m on the titles board too now. 😀

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  May 3, 2018

          Bother!
          *Watch out, Shaneo.

          Reply
          • PartisanZ

             /  May 3, 2018

            Your title, Sir, would be PCVS would it not?

            Even more intimidating …?

            Might be mistaken for ‘Politically Correct Virtue Signaler’ though …

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  May 3, 2018

              Quite correct. Getting the Printer to amend my card.

  9. Gezza

     /  May 3, 2018

    Has anyone seen trav? I have questions.

    Reply
    • Don’t target.

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  May 3, 2018

        I now have no questions.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  May 3, 2018

          Well, I have one question.
          Why have I got 3 downticks at 1.07 pm?
          If they are from one or more wankers, no reply is necessary.

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  May 3, 2018

            Just downtick this or any of my comments above to confirm. Thanks. 👍🏼

            Reply
            • Traveller

               /  May 3, 2018

              Here I am

            • Gezza

               /  May 3, 2018

              Hiya trav. In relation to your claim the other day that the rumour about Gayford being discussed & prodded on here was not a rumour, what did you mean?

  10. Gerrit

     /  May 3, 2018

    What I find interesting is the Police statement that there is no “current” (my interpretation) investigation based on the unsubstantiated and smearing type evidence in the public domain.

    Now that leaves the Police open to start an investigation if concrete evidence was placed before them… meaning the Police statement is a nothing statement really. They should never react to unsubstantiated and smearing type evidence in the public domain.

    They have to investigate complaints if presented by credible witnesses and substantiated facts.

    I would hope that ALL members of the public where treated similarly (even Blazers next door neighbour).

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  May 3, 2018

      You second and third paragraphs are intriguing. I have questions. Do you believe:

      1. The rumour or at least the insinuation of possibly illegal behaviour to be true?
      2. If one or more credible witnesses would actually come forward to the police this would prove it?

      Reply
      • Gerrit

         /  May 3, 2018

        Gezza,

        1, Dont know, was not there. Have no idea if the insinuation is true or not and equally have no way to prove either truth or fiction. .
        2. No it would not prove anything. However the Police at that point need to open an investigation. A persons creed, colour or importance should have no bearing what so ever on Police opening an investigation. To not do so leads to corruption. Bit like Blazer accusing his neighbour of burglary. The Police need to make inquiries and rule out suspects to find the actual culprit.

        Hence I said the Police have made a fairly non descriptive statement that leaves the way open for further investigations if required. For nor to have done so makes the accusation that the Police were under political pressure tantamount to corruption.

        So hopefully the Police made this statement on their own volition.

        Reply
        • duperez

           /  May 3, 2018

          It seems you want to have a go at the police. Obviously you’re allowed to. And you’re allowed to hint, or get us to consider, by the way the last sentence is included, that there could be more to it than meets the eye.

          The sentence clearly makes no accusations or claims. Is it like me standing up at a meeting after someone has spoken a contrary view to what I want and saying, “As far as I know the clubrooms won’t be misused by that group but then as far as I know the member hasn’t been charged with sexual molestation of children”?

          Reply
          • Gerrit

             /  May 3, 2018

            Not at all, all am asking is they treat every person the same way, without bias.

            Currently there is no accusation so there is no need for any Police involvement.

            Yet they make a statement to say “While in general we do not respond to enquiries which seek to confirm if individuals are under police investigation, on this occasion we can say that Mr Gayford is not and has not been the subject of any police inquiry, nor has he been charged in relation to any matter.”

            Nothing to say that the matter is closed even IF (big IF) new evidence comes to light.

            Would the Police make similar comment in regards your sexual molestation smear on a person you disagree with?

            No.

            So why on this occasion? Favouritism based on connection?

            All am asking is did the Police do this statement off their own bat and if so why? They have never done this in the past.

            If they did this on command (or hint or suggestion) from the political wing of the Labour party than we should ALL be worried.

            And yes having a go at Police for not clarifying that they made this historic and precedent setting statement on their own volition but favouring a predominant person. Favouratism that wont be extended to the recipient of your false sexual exploitation case.

            Gezza, Your accusatory glare fails to have an impact.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  May 3, 2018

              Well, now you’re smearing the police so I guess your last sentence is not surprising.

            • duperez

               /  May 3, 2018

              Would the Police make similar comment in regards to my sexual molestation smear on a person you disagree with? If enough people got in touch with them with concerns. You know, someone leaves the meeting and says, “Did you hear about …?” and so on down the chain and someone whose child has contact with the person at a sports club contacts the police.

              If the police follow up is that favouritism based on connection? I accept your extended explanation and must say I’d always be concerned at political interference with the police.

              Continuing to say “on their own volition but favouring a predominant person” and “favouritism” and “did this on command from the political wing of the Labour party” suggests to me that your main concern isn’t about the scurrilous attacks.

              If this is an historic and precedent setting statement maybe the behaviour which precipitated it is also historic and precedent setting. Not just the initiation of the attacks but the way they’ve been carried on through various communities. And not just the carrying on of them but the renewed slathering of smears by the guilty, (no guilty consciences) even at the process of trying to put them to bed.

        • Gezza

           /  May 3, 2018

          Wot dupers said 👍🏼 but with more of an accusatory glare.

          Reply
          • Gerrit

             /  May 3, 2018

            So asking if this favouratism will be extended to ALL members of the public is accusation of what? Are some more equal than others?

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  May 3, 2018

              All am asking is did the Police do this statement off their own bat and if so why? They have never done this in the past.

              If they did this on command (or hint or suggestion) from the political wing of the Labour party than we should ALL be worried.

              The police have been very clear that they made this statement off their own bat due to the very serious nature of the allegations. You are imo cynically indulging in a tactic colloquially known as JAQIng off.

            • Blazer

               /  May 3, 2018

              contact the authorities Gerrit and tell them you have no problems with paroled sex offendors living next door to you.You have such a benevolent,open…mind.

            • Gerrit

               /  May 3, 2018

              Sorry Blazer what are you on about? First burglars now sex offenders?

            • Blazer

               /  May 3, 2018

              ‘If I got burgled and my neighbour had recently been in prison for …burglary,it would be quite natural for me to suspect him of it …would it…not?’
              ‘No’
              ‘I would hope that ALL members of the public where treated similarly (even Blazers next door neighbour).’

    • duperez

       /  May 3, 2018

      I’m not sure the police had concrete evidence from credible witnesses and substantiated facts when they ‘pressured’ gangs in Whangarei a couple of years ago. They saw a situation which needed attention.

      Maybe in the subject case they had complaints from credible witnesses. (Not me obviously!) I knew of the rumours a time ago, seeing them on two ‘ordinary’ blog sites. (Not this one.) Ironically after weeks of having such stuff one of them came out all holy and precious about it this week.

      Reply
    • PDB

       /  May 3, 2018

      The main rumour as put about on twitter is clearly proved to be false by the police statement.

      Reply
  11. Patzcuaro

     /  May 3, 2018
    Reply
  12. Patzcuaro

     /  May 3, 2018

    The end result of the smear campaign maybe an own goal. Ardern and Gayford look to have come out of it banking some sympathy for being targeted by the smear campaign.

    Reply
    • PDB

       /  May 3, 2018

      People I’ve spoken to, who had no idea about this story as most did (considering it was a twitter thing), are now trying to find out what the rumours are all about.

      Streisand effect.

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  May 3, 2018

        Are you telling them?

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  May 3, 2018

          Can we take it from your lack of response that you’re telling them?

          Reply
        • Gezza

           /  May 3, 2018

          PDB: People I’ve spoken to, who had no idea about this story as most did (considering it was a twitter thing), are now trying to find out what the rumours are all about.

          Those rumours. Have you had a recent blow to the head?

          Reply
          • PDB

             /  May 3, 2018

            Just telling you what I told them…

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  May 3, 2018

              So you don’t know what the rumours are, & that’s what you tell them?

            • Gezza

               /  May 3, 2018

              This morning. No sleep last night. Worried sick she’ll be blamed for starting them.

              Happy about that? You shouldn’t be.

      • Grimm

         /  May 3, 2018

        I agree, PR disaster.

        It’s like the police coming out and saying “we are not investigating Joe Boggs for beating his wife”

        Then the whole country wants to know why not.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  May 3, 2018

          No it doesn’t. A lot of people couldn’t give a toss.

          Reply
          • NOEL

             /  May 3, 2018

            Given this all originated in Twitter and media, politicans and bottom feeding toxic fish are most likely to have accounts it’s no wonder most don’t know.
            I’m lobbying Twitter to do away with pseudonyms.

            Reply
            • Actually it was out in the real world I heard there were rumours, absolutely nothing to do with beltway or Twitter.

            • Gezza

               /  May 3, 2018

              Where’d you hear it, trav? Not the place name or anything, just, like Yacht Club, local pub, Casino, barbecue, opera, Council Meeting, School Board … whatever – can you remember?

  13. PDB

     /  May 3, 2018

    There was some debate yesterday on here that Ardern just saying she blamed ‘Dirty Politics’ for the smear campaign was just using that term generally & not trying to blame National in a little dirty rumour mongering herself. That is just head in sand stuff considering she is always careful to choose her words.

    Probably why as soon as she said that the press ran to Hager & Bridges for comment…

    Interesting piece from Soper on the saga:

    “Make no mistake, Labour orchestrated the events of the past 24 hours.

    Support parties were tipped off the night before the story involving the false rumours surrounding Ardern’s partner Clarke Gayford would be made public the following day.”

    “Jacinda Ardern’s clear strategy was simply not to address the rumours at all, repeatedly telling us “this is not what my job is about and I’m focused on doing my job.”

    Of course it’s not what her job’s about, even if she did at one point say it was dirty politics, making it political before later saying she wasn’t pointing the finger of blame at anyone.

    Her Deputy Winston Peters had no problem with that though saying it was black ops politics and without naming National, said the people behind it would be the people advantaged by it – go figure!”

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12043768

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  May 3, 2018

      I have a suspicion Baz is not a fan of Jacinda et al so possibly he might be a little overly inclined to talk up a conspiracy theory now doing the rounds with some of the bottom feeders.

      Reply
      • PDB

         /  May 3, 2018

        Much to learn Gezza, I’ll break the truth about Santa and the Tooth fairy to you next week.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  May 3, 2018

          Know too much already. Embarrassing for you, this. Why do you keep it up?

          Reply
          • PDB

             /  May 3, 2018

            The whole MSM knew what Ardern was implying…..you do not. Looks like only one person being embarrassed/in denial and it obviously ain’t me.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  May 3, 2018

              Well, where has Jacinda blamed the National Party?
              A link to any statement by her to that effect would be helpful.

            • PDB

               /  May 3, 2018

              Circular argument – go to the top of this series of posts and start again.

          • Gezza

             /  May 3, 2018

            Can you remember how this all started? And what kind of party supporters seemed to be the most keen to peddle these insinuations? Let’s get back to the basics & then quietly work through how you have ended up with blaming Jacinda, slowly.

            Reply
          • PDB

             /  May 3, 2018

            You’re jumping the shark – a bunch of govt hating/Gayford hating people spreading nasty rumours on twitter is not the same as the National Party itself spreading nasty rumours on twitter as part of some dedicated ‘black-ops’ campaign. Once you get your head around that then one can only look unfavourably upon any political figure (including Ardern) trying to say/allude the National party is behind the attacks on Gayford with no proof given.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  May 3, 2018

              Do you have a link to Jacinda saying the National Party is behind this sleazy political rumour? Or are you just joining SOME of the bottom feeding media hacks in smearing her with this allegation?

            • PDB

               /  May 3, 2018

              You’re now being silly and not worth talking to – read this post again over and over: “The whole MSM knew what Ardern was implying…..you do not. Looks like only one person being embarrassed/in denial and it obviously ain’t me.”

            • Gezza

               /  May 3, 2018

              🦃

            • PartisanZ

               /  May 3, 2018

              I’d be interested to know how you say dirty politics without saying “dirty politics” …?

            • High Flying Duck

               /  May 3, 2018

              Dirty Politics is a very loaded term these days. She definitely used it deliberately, and Winston followed up with his usual sledge hammer subtlety to make sure any slow people got the insinuation.
              There is no evidence or notion that it was a political hit, or had any political motivation at all.

            • Gezza

               /  May 3, 2018

              Please allow me to apologise to everyone for your smearing Jacinda with this unproven allegation about something she hasn’t said & which you seem to claiming is what she meant implying you have the ability to read her mind & that her words mean something completely different to what they mean.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  May 3, 2018

              The Prime Minister told the Herald: “I won’t comment on dirty politics. It’s just not what I’m here for.”

              https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12043351

              he Prime Minister has dismissed rumours of inappropriate behaviour from her partner Clarke Gayford as “dirty politics,”

              https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/103551431/clarke-gayford-rumours-dirty-politics–jacinda-ardern

            • Gezza

               /  May 3, 2018

              Well it is dirty politics, obviously. The rumours appear to have started and/or been picked up & pushed by people who dislike Jacinda & / or the Labour government with clearly reported growing anticipation of causing her & them political damage & distress. The word on the street from some of the bottom feeders is that where folk seem to be hearing them from the most was supporters of the National Party, indulging in spreading muck.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  May 3, 2018

              Were they Gezza? They weren’t just the ramblings of some a-political troublemakers who like to spread fake news?
              Or just someone who dislikes Clarke Gayford or has a personal grudge against him?
              What is your evidence that there was any political motivation behind it?

            • Gezza

               /  May 3, 2018

              The number of people reporting that National Party supporters were the people telling them.

              https://yournz.org/2018/05/03/gayford-fake-smears-exposed/#comment-272934

              We had one here saying it was not a rumour & strongly implying the allegations are true. Now, unless there are multiple allegations & that National Party supporter was talking about a different rumour & allegation than the Police are, which they say is a serious but false allegation, about the PM’s baby’s dad, then that is definitely dirty politics.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  May 3, 2018

              Richard Harman said that he had heard it from “fringe” supporters and probably not members of the party.
              Josie Pagani said she had heard the rumours from Labour sources as did both contributors on the Huddle with Larry Williams last night.
              No-one has said they know who started the rumours and no-one has any evidence as to why.
              If you think dismissing rumours with no evidence by throwing insinuations as to who is to blame with no evidence is OK then all power to you.
              It isn’t a biggie, but I thought it was uncalled for from Jacinda, especially given the support National gave her in condemning it.

            • Gezza

               /  May 3, 2018

              If it isn’t a biggie why are you making it one by whining about it & claiming Jacinda has said the National Party was behind it. Please give a link to anything where JACINDA HAS SAID IT’S THE NATIONAL PARTY BEHIND IT. Otherwise, stop smearing her. Hasn’t there been enuf of that for you? For God’s sake.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  May 3, 2018

              I’ll join PDB on the sidelines. You’re being an ass on this as it was explained very well.

              Andrea Vance’s tweet I posted below says it all, as does Barry Soper’s story:

              “Of course it’s not what her job’s about, even if she did at one point say it was dirty politics, making it political before later saying she wasn’t pointing the finger of blame at anyone.

              Her Deputy Winston Peters had no problem with that though saying it was black ops politics and without naming National, said the people behind it would be the people advantaged by it – go figure!”

              https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12043768

              and Audrey Young’s article:

              “Ardern will have the sympathy of every party in Parliament and all but the most stone-hearted MP.

              That makes her calculated reference to “dirty politics” in her statement unfair on National.

              As she well knows, ‘dirty politics’ is no longer a generic phrase, but was the title of the Nicky Hager book about some low-life operatives associated with the former government.

              Ardern has no reason to cast a slur on the National Party by innuendo.

              That is to stoop to the standards of the peddlers of rumour.”

              https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12043416
              .
              If you want to pretend there was no insinuation – especially when coupled with Winston’s statement and JA’s very careful backdown later in the day over what she said then good on you. But you are being wilfully ignorant.

            • Gezza

               /  May 3, 2018

              I wasn’t on this site or any others implying the rumours were true. But other people were. Playing dirty politics. Well, they got their faces smacked & if someone now gets to make political capital out of it those people might have learned something.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  May 3, 2018

              What you are talking about is not dirty politics Gezza. It is gossip. Out.

            • Gezza

               /  May 3, 2018

              It’s the best thing this week to happen for Mike Hosking, Stuff, The Herald, Andrea, Debs H-C, Barry, various blogs (no names though). Click vent click vent click vent click vent click vent click vent click vent clck holier than thou click vent click warning click …

              Meantime in The House everybody’s moved on.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  May 3, 2018

              Absolutely right there Gezz – the House has moved on, because it wasn’t political…

            • Gezza

               /  May 3, 2018

              Exactly. And because nobody wants to dig in any further in case who knows what might crawl out about who told who and who knew about it and so on. So everyone I reckon should just stay calm & carry on & pretend there were no right wing trolls.

            • Gezza

               /  May 3, 2018

              And the political pundits & useless rumour & holier than thou fading hacks & commentators will have to find something else to bag someone in politics over.

  14. sorethumb

     /  May 3, 2018

    Adern is famous for rallying support amongst left-liberal ; treading water and getting pregnant in office. Did I miss something?

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  May 3, 2018

      I don’t think she was in office when she got preggers. A link would be helpful if you know otherwise.

      Reply
  15. Bill Brown

     /  May 3, 2018

    [Deleted attempt to disregard clear warnings not to insinuate anything. PG]

    Reply
  16. PDB

     /  May 3, 2018

    There are a couple of side issues to this whole saga;

    *The police becoming involved in what are twitter rumours seems very unusual? Especially as they concerned an individual who is a TV host. Is this the new standard for police involvement?
    *A quick look at where these twitter rumours came from show many of them have now closed their accounts. Who are these people?
    *Is Andrea Vance correct in saying this;

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  May 3, 2018

      Definitely, unless you’re someone looking to push more dirt at Jacinda.

      Reply
      • High Flying Duck

         /  May 3, 2018

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  May 3, 2018

          So you’re wanting to push more dirt at Jacinda too, HFD.
          Aren’t you ashamed of yourself?
          You should be.

          Reply
          • High Flying Duck

             /  May 3, 2018

            What dirt?
            Just pointing out Jacinda threw in an unnecessary subtle shot at National when speaking of the rumours, and that Winston doubled down on it.
            That’s not dirt, and it does not diminish the despicable nature of the rumours themselves.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  May 3, 2018

              This was definitely dirty politics. WTF if wrong with you? Do you seriously think it should be called “an unfortunate situation”. Without dropping Pete in the grotney pudding by stating exactly what was being alleged – do you personally know what it is that was actually being alleged?

            • High Flying Duck

               /  May 3, 2018

              I know exactly what it was – I think I even know both of them if there were 2…
              They were filthy smears. They were personal attacks, they were slander.
              I don’t recall any political aspect to them other than the fact he is the partner of JA.

            • Gezza

               /  May 3, 2018

              Of all the hacks whose delicate sensibilities have been most offended by this whole shabby affair probably the one I am feeling the most for would be poor Andrea after all that awkward business with Peter Dunne.

        • Traveller

           /  May 3, 2018

          Andrea is precisely correct. Where was Bush when the Press actually reported on multiple events that it transpired were unjustified and, in some instances, a bunch of lies?

          Hard to imagine we now live in a country where the most senior Policeman gets involved in rumours involving a private citizen who is not a member of our Legislative or Executive bodies

          The involvement of a Police Commissioner in “rumour” that apparently never happened and was certainly never reported has to be exceptional and having searched it is quite unprecedented.

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  May 3, 2018

            You said it wasn’t a rumor. In a context implying you had knowledge from an impeccable source that it was an allegation that was true. What did you mean?

            Reply
            • Traveller

               /  May 3, 2018

              There are many rumours out there.

              There is no detail on what specific rumour /rumours Mr Bush referred to.

              What I do know is that we are not free to subject Pete George to action. We have been successfully closed down from discussing issues in a public forum.

            • Gezza

               /  May 3, 2018

              Hmm. I see. Thank you.
              That will be all.

          • Gezza

             /  May 3, 2018

            The involvement of a Police Commissioner in “rumour” that apparently never happened and was certainly never reported has to be exceptional and having searched it is quite unprecedented.

            They say the allegations were serious. My assumption is that they therefore alleged criminality. As we don’t know what they were but they were spreading like wildfire then clearly they were of an unprecedented seriousness. The pokice statement may not be the end of it.

            Reply
            • Traveller

               /  May 3, 2018

              “The police statement may not be the end of it.”

              No. I’d agree not.

  17. Zedd

     /  May 3, 2018

    This reminds me of a comment I heard on ZB, several months ago.. a caller rang & said (paraphrased) ‘I hear that Ms Ardern’s partner is a GAY-LORD’ he was cut off in short order.. this smacks of all the ‘gay’ rumors about ‘auntie Helen’s’ partner.
    I could care less about Jacinda’s partner.. I’m only interested in the REAL politics, not these reported smears/innuendoes about her partner.. whether true/false is not my concern !

    Reply
    • Zedd

       /  May 3, 2018

      Now if it was discovered that any of the 120 were an axe-murder… that would be different :/

      Reply
  18. Blazer

     /  May 3, 2018

    Smear and innuendo is common throughout history as a strategy to destabilise political positions.The U.K Govt seeking to distance itself from black propaganda created the ‘Political Warfare Executive’…to spread lies to undermine various prominent personalities in the war years.

    Reply
    • Zedd

       /  May 3, 2018

      tautoko Blazer.. but maybe they should stick to ‘finding dirt’ on the MPs, not their partners/whanau, that just SOOOOOOO Low

      Reply
  19. Patzcuaro

     /  May 3, 2018
    Reply
  20. Gezza

     /  May 3, 2018

    It’s a bit click baity but he does link to commentary which he says is quite sober & informed & this is better than his previous attempts to help the rumour spreading.

    Reply
  21. lurcher1948

     /  May 3, 2018

    Matthew Hooton

    @MatthewHootonNZ
    15h15 hours ago
    More
    Can anyone point me please to the “vicious innuendo and gossip on right-wing blogs” or is this another “sewage in the walls at Middlemore” situation?
    Matthew surely you read the rightwing blogs

    Reply
    • Zedd

       /  May 3, 2018

      my comment above.. ZB: is a ‘hot bed’ of right-wing smears. I often just laugh at the ignorance/misinfo. BUT not all of it is really ‘amusing’ 😦

      Reply
    • Gezza

       /  May 3, 2018

      Pay no attention to him. He’s a gossip.

      Reply
  22. Danny

     /  May 3, 2018

    Where there is smoke….

    Reply
    • High Flying Duck

       /  May 3, 2018

      There are scurrilous rumours? Just like the ones John Key had constantly, and Paula Bennett, and Helen Clark and on and on and on…

      Reply
      • chrism56

         /  May 3, 2018

        If you go back over the comments in posts on this website, Blazer was constantly making insinuations and trying to spread rumours about Paula Bennett. This include false quotes. Now the tables are turned, it is dirty politics.

        Reply
        • High Flying Duck

           /  May 3, 2018

          And I don’t recall it being a Labour hit on Paula – just malcontents making trouble.
          Which is the most likely cause this time.
          But try telling Gezza that!

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  May 3, 2018

            Yes and I didn’t buy into that one either. But there you go. People playing dirty politics there got shut down very quickly by lawyers letter. I don’t think the political hacks were so keen to have fun with that one.

            Reply
            • High Flying Duck

               /  May 3, 2018

              I think we have differing views of dirty politics Gezza.
              The term relates to a political hit job by one political party on another to discredit them.
              Neither of these cases fall into that category, unless evidence emerges otherwise.

        • Blazer

           /  May 3, 2018

          produce your evidence.

          Reply
          • High Flying Duck

             /  May 3, 2018

            That’s exactly what I’ve been saying Blazer – keep up.
            There is no evidence that this is dirty politics, and casting aspersions that it is, is poor form.

            Reply
            • Blazer

               /  May 3, 2018

              please tell me just 1 case that fits your criteria of …’dirty politics’…over.

          • chrism56

             /  May 3, 2018

            Here are just some of your comments Blazer – though I note PG has had to delete quite a few. From November 2nd
            “But,but she never deliberately mislead social welfare!!She is a liability and a goneburger.The ultimate turncoat,class traitor and..hypocrite.”
            From Feb 13th
            “no mention of ‘dirt’…Meacham does catch Key out on another lie…however…’The court documents showed that Key was working at Elders Finance when one of the illegal transactions took place, despite Key previously saying he left a month beforehand.’” and” I just don’t accept confirming Keys employment background as being dirt.He did lie,that came..naturally.”
            Or this one
            “Truckstop parties, tattoo club…so many credible witnesses to her behavior when on welfare and resentment about her reinvention. The fact that she has a very tenuous grasp on her many portfolios. ..is not. ..inspiring. .either.”
            And of course this one – your fake quote “How about. ..’I’ve got $950 shoes. .and you losers. ..haven’t. ‘” ” from August 6th.
            That is just a small sample of the rumour and innuendo that you have continually peddled.

            Reply
  23. lurcher1948

     /  May 3, 2018

    Barry Soper is on Clarke Gayfords Twitter feed a lot and his wife HDPA is a right wing host on NZME SO ALL I CAN SAY IS HUMMM

    Reply
    • High Flying Duck

       /  May 3, 2018

      Soper is good mates with Winston and is generally a little left leaning in his views. What’s your point?

      Reply
      • lurcher1948

         /  May 3, 2018

        Hummmmm enough said this is how rumors begin…just saying but then I’m retired and not in the media

        Reply
      • Blazer

         /  May 3, 2018

        Barely Sober ‘ bol…is not good mates with Winston,its just the fact that he’s been around nearly as long.

        Reply
  24. Revel

     /  May 3, 2018

    This is utterly ridiculous. When John Key left as PM there were much more malicious rumours abound of why he did so, some that involved his family, all propagated from the left. No story about how nasty those rumours were smearing the left for spreading them…no outrage…no Police interference.

    Then the Paula Bennett smear around the time of the election. No story emerged in the media but yet another whispering campaign about her.

    But what I found most risible yesterday was Winston Peters blaming “Dirty Politics” when a certain blogger from that time has mysteriously become his new lapblogger!!

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  May 3, 2018

      The Bennet rumour – wasn’t that sort of an overnight sensation event but by the time everyone woke & heard whispers & started googling like crazy the defamation action threat had already got to everyone so nobody was game to push that one in print in case it suddenly became very expensive?

      Reply
    • Blazer

       /  May 3, 2018

      I never heard any rumours!What evidence do you have that there were some propagated by the left?The owner of this blog takes a dim view of these ..insuations.

      Reply
      • chrism56

         /  May 3, 2018

        You didn’t hear them, you wrote them, Oro you are denying what you wrote on August 6th Blazer – the Internet never forgets – or is dirty politics OK when the left does it?

        Reply
  1. Gayford fake smears exposed — Your NZ – NZ Conservative Coalition

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s