Labour behaviour problem deeper and wider than leadership

Last week The Standard demonstrated that the problems with behaviour in the Labour Party and the way it was dealt with runs deeper and wider than leadership and Parliament.

The Labour staffer story that was published last Monday by The Spinoff – A Labour volunteer alleged a violent sexual assault by a Labour staffer. This is her story – set off the biggest political news story through the week, with the spotlight on the Labour Party and it’s leadership. Party president Nigel Haworth resigned on Wednesday, and the staffer resigned from his job in the leader’s Office in Parliament on Thursday.

As the story progressed a lot of attention turned to what Jacinda Ardern knew or didn’t know , and to  lesser extent what one of her senior ministers, Grant Robertson knew and when.

The terms of reference of an inquiry are expected to be announced today by Ardern. She has promised a comprehensive investigation, but there have been reports of debate within the Labour Party council about the scope of the inquiry, with suggestions that some have tried to exclude scrutiny of how they handled the initial internal inquiry that is widely seen as badly botched.

But problems with how claims of bullying assault and sexual assault are dealt with have been deeper in the party, and wider than Labour.

Green MPs who are often speak strongly against attacks against women and abuses of power seem to have been silent on this.

There have been attempts to deflect by arguing that National have handled things poorly in the past – they have, last year and years ago, but that’s in the main an attempt at diversion. National have been accused by some of engineering the criticism of Labour and Ardern, with some bizarre conspiracies suggested. Paula Bennett in particular has been targeted because as a last resort some victims went to her to try to force Labour into action (which she helped achieve).

There has been a number of people on Twitter running the diversions, dumping on the messengers and blaming National and the media.

The Standard blog is strongly (but not exclusively) aligned with Labour. The way the issue has been dealt with there is s sign that the culture of bullying, and of burying bad news, runs deeper in the party than party and parliamentary leadership.

There was nothing mentioned about last Mondays biggest political story until I posted about it here.

I kept posting comments about it through the week, and it was well discussed.

It wasn’t until Thursday until the first and only post, by Te Reo Putake – Accused Labour Party Staffer Resigns

It was a light week for posts at The Standard, with Labour stalwart mickysavage doing his best to divert to National bashing and trying to portray National as worse at dealing with scandals.

But Open Forums were active discussing the issue through the week, aided by me posting daily revelations.

On Wednesday I posted about several media reports, and also on the open letter to Ardern by Labour Party supporters concerned about how it was being dealt with (they demanded the resignation of Haworth).

lprent gave me a not very subtle warning.

[lprent: I’d suggest that you be careful about claiming authentication of that ‘open letter’ here. I read that article and I simply don’t believe it. Apparently nor do many others – 100 people adding to it doesn’t exactly sound like a landslide.

To me it reads exactly like a fake false flag operation. And I never appreciate false news or outright lies being promulgated here. ]

He went on to argue a number of times that he thought the letter looked to him like a setup from National, with no evidence. The authenticity of the open letter hasn’t credibly been challenged anywhere, and media verified it as authentic.

This was the first of several warnings from lprent on posting information about the issue. He was trying to shut things down.

Attacks on messengers – in particular the media and Paula Bennett, and at The Standard on me continued as the story continued.

There was a lot of media commentary on the issue in the weekend. I posted on some of that on Sunday morning.

What followed looked like a planned and coordinated plan to shut me up. I don’t think all involved were working together, but that’s how it looks to me, and I have seen these executions often in the past.

Sacha and Anne immediately started to niggle at me (Anne is a long time Labour supporter, Sacha leans further left). Earlier in the week Anne had told me to eff off from responding to her comments, so ironic. She had called on moderators to deal to me more than once.

lprent started to give me lectures, like

Perhaps you and the idiot who wrote that quoted piece should engage your brain rather than your lust for gossip and consider what options gets killed if that kind of report gets released. For a start, just think of the consequences for victims.

Sometimes you are just an idiot.

And

[lprent: You must be blind. There have been comments all over the site for days. Unlike you, some of them have actually had suggestions about what should be done to prevent this kind of crap again.

I realise that you prefer to act as a brainless critic who carps and can’t offer any ideas. But perhaps you should try exercising your brain a bit.

But my toleration for outright lying by you and other is wearing very thin. If you can’t bring yourself to actually participate in debate about how to solve a problem – then leave. ]

I didn’t lie. Sacha and Anne had made things up about me, but they got a free pass – this is standard practice at The Standard. A few days ago marty mars had barely had his hand smacked for abusing others and making up accusations, something he haas a long record of doing.

Others joined in.

And at some time during the day, after moderator messages from lprent, weka and Incognito, I ended up being banned because I didn’t edit a quote up to their required standard – despite others in the same thread not complying.

It’s years since I’ve been banned there, but this looks like an attempt shut down discussion on the Labour staffer issue.

It serves as a not very subtle warning to others (some others have also been banned over the last week).

It’s not just the Labour Party hierarchy who seem intent on sweeping their bungling (and the victims of bullying and assaults) under the carpet.

 

Leave a comment

23 Comments

  1. Excellent hopefully the Labour Party hierarchy tune into the left wing echo chamber and totally misplay their hand. See ya later Jacinda.

    Reply
  2. Some of the Twitter utterances have been eye opening, strong feminists blaming the victims, saying she should have cried out etc.
    This (from a Parlimentary insider) seems a reasonable explanation of how the Party got in this mess.
    https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2019/09/why_did_labour_work_so_hard_to_protect_the_staffer.html
    For those who don’t know who the alleged offender is, he is not old or even white.

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  16th September 2019

      One of the people on the Panel has soken out
      1)””The email did not have an attachment,” Mitchell said in a statement.
      and during the meeting:
      2)””At no point did she say that she had been sexually assaulted or tell us about the events that are described in The Spinoff article.”
      “I met with the complainant again on May 29 to clarify the allegations and the matters we were investigating,” Mitchell said.
      3)”At no time during that meeting did she say that she had been sexually assaulted by the subject of the complaint or disclose the events that are the subject of The Spinoff article.”

      4), Mitchell said she emailed him three documents on June 11, including one that she referred to as her testimony, none of which contained any reference to a sexual assault.
      Mitchell said that she emailed him on June 17 and thanked the panel for their hard work.

      Thats a pretty clear refuting in the real meaning of the word.
      Most of which can be checked via email forensic checks
      “I have had my computer forensically examined,” Mitchell said.
      The March email had no attachment, and none of the attachments sent in June referred to a sexual assault, he said.

      This has been be point all along, her claim of assault were believable but her timeline story of what she told Labour isnt totally credible.
      As of course if the Panel of 3 didnt know then they cant have not told Ardern about something they didnt know about
      https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12268129

      Not expecting a post on YourNZ covering this information as an agenda has been put in place

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  16th September 2019

        There’s already a post on YourNZ covering this information. I’ve just read it, It’s from you.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  16th September 2019

          Have read the article. What constitutes a “sexual assault” in these days of #metoo is becoming a pretty broad brush. But with Haworth stepping down and Ardern expressing apologies for the failings of “the process”, suggesting there is something of substance needing to be examined, I suggest waiting until the review is completed to see what comes to light.

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  16th September 2019

            Just saying but Pollies can bite back
            “Ms Collins threatened to sue Mr Little, Mr Mallard and Radio New Zealand in March over an interview which linked her to the leak of a sensitive email from former National Party president Michelle Boag.
            The High Court yesterday confirmed Ms Collins has launched defamation action against Mr Little and Mr Mallard – though no action has been lodged against Radio New Zealand.” NZ herald 2012

            The Spinoff may may crash and burn if all those Labour party officials ask their lawyers…wait one lawyer was on the panel

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  16th September 2019

              Fair point, we’ll have to wait and see. But aren’t you bordering on squirrelling a lot?

  3. PartisanZ

     /  16th September 2019

    Wow, nine consecutive topics on this while National divide the nation’s voters and partition the country up into rural versus urban, farmers versus jaffas, road versus rail, drug (not alcohol) prohibition versus harm reduction, climate-change deniers versus climate-change alarmists and every other polarized dichotomy they can possibly manufacture with the help of a compliant media … while simultaneously brown-nosing the CCP … 🤣😖🥱

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  16th September 2019

      National can’t divide anything. But as people wake up they will make their own observations and act accordingly. The facts are simply: we have a bunch of lying, ignorant, economic morons in office. We need them out…for good. Socialism is always a toxic commodity.

      Reply
      • PartisanZ

         /  16th September 2019

        Like Chinese ‘Communist’ socialism you mean?

        National are plainly cultivating the rural versus urban divide with ‘Dim Whittingtons’ like Matt King MP quoting nut-bar climate-change deniers like Muriel Newman, and posting ‘Open Letters’ from Agribusiness firms saying farmers haven’t experienced hurty feelings like this since the rigours of Rogerednomics …

        Remember, the end of small-holding family farms and the era of mortgagee sales and farmer suicides …

        Yet today’s situation is precisely Rogerednomics come home to roost …

        Anyhow, you were on my tail quickly eh Corky? [Deleted – don’t make insinuations like that. PG]

        Reply
      • duperez

         /  16th September 2019

        They will make their own observations? Observations of what? Observations of Mike Hoskings’ observations ? (et al)

        Reply
        • Corky

           /  16th September 2019

          Parti is a big boy. He can look after himself.

          ”They will make their own observations? Observations of what?”

          That should be self evident. Maybe The Standard is more suited to your mentality. They have a habit of making the obvious an unfathomable mystery.

          Reply
  4. Duker

     /  16th September 2019

    Come on PG . You have been focusing on Paula Bennets version of events with heavy quotes including unrelated stuff PB was using about something at the UN while back.
    You have deleted parts of comments ,as you are entitled to so, when it didnt follow your narrative.
    You arent expected to allow your site to provide balance in this topic but to then go after the Standard ( which is notorious for its over sensitive authors) isnt ‘fair and balanced ‘ in tone.( not your words)
    as for a ‘wider labour problem’
    You havent publicised this statement from Ardern at the time of Nationals internal sex scandal
    “An email from the Prime Minister’s office was sent to other ministers’ offices on October 16 last year, which included a proposed response if they were asked by media about the issues surrounding Mr Ross.
    Ministers were told to say, “These are issues for the National Party caucus. There’s always some concerns when there’s a human side to these situations.”
    Did they make advantage of the Nats improper behaviour issues.

    National is the party with the wider problem.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  16th September 2019

      The first blog I began visiting regularly out of interest was Whaleoil. It wasn’t very long before I decided it was just too continually vicious & nasty for my taste.

      The next blog I began visiting instead, after that, was The Standard. It took a wee bit longer for me to decide that despite some good writers, & some contributors from the “other side” being allowed a small amount of latitude to challenge or at least question some prevailing dogma, the mods were utter bloody control freaks, & lPrent himself was arrogant, intolerant & quite often simply wrong, so I abandoned them to the party faithful & to the fawning dickheads whose most important contributions seemed to often only really amount to:

      “lol

      +100”

      At least PG is generally prepared, from my observations, to allow a far greater degree of personal attack to go unpunished for the sake of allowing an aggrieved poster here to vent & argue their position.

      PG’s blog suits me well. The most important thing about it for me has been the occasional well-reasoned arguments & comments from intelligent, thinking posters – even those I may notparticularly like – that have changed my mind.

      Reply
  5. Alan Wilkinson

     /  16th September 2019

    The trouble with the moral high ground is all the cracks that need papering over or somehow to be ignored. It’s so darn inconvenient when the attacks are coming from your own side.

    Reply
  6. Maggy Wassilieff

     /  16th September 2019

    Step outside the Leftie group-think and they’ll hunt you down.

    We’re now hearing that complainants’ names are being leaked and spread around the parliamentary gossip mill. Some complainants feel a witch hunt is underway.

    https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2019/09/opinion-pm-jacinda-ardern-needed-to-act-sooner-on-sexual-assault-allegations.html

    I recognise the technique.

    Reply
  7. Maggy Wassilieff

     /  16th September 2019

    Lawyer for complainant “Sarah” has released a statement in relation to Simon Mitchell’s claims
    https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/16-09-2019/two-statements-on-the-labour-party-inquiry/

    Reply

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 )

Connecting to %s