Pawns, Bishop. Who to believe?

On February 13 this was posted by ‘Cameron Slater’: Bishop victim of blue-on-blue attack?

Several reliable sources are saying that Chris Bishop was the victim of some utu by Bill English and his faction after Bishop, Nikki Kaye and Todd Muller were held responsible for the chatter about Bill’s leadership and leaking to Barry Soper and Richard Harman.

The beauty of the hit on Bishop is that no matter what Bishop says Bill’s team have framed him…

Slater made a number of very low, dirty insinuations in that story (hence no link). He went on the surmise quote a lot considering he had claimed to have “several reliable sources”.

Hit jobs always leave trails, and murk, and make the target look over their shoulder. I should know better than most, having been the target of a few hit jobs. Don’t look at who was hit, or where the information originated… look at who benefits. Look for who isn’t in the mix. Once you establish those things then you are close to identifying who is behind the hit jobs.

Don’t look for what and who was in the books, look for who was missing. Then, look at who benefited from all of those hit jobs. Look for who had previously been hurt or harmed by the targets in some way.

Now look at the Bishop hit job with new eyes.

There’s enough murk to make the post looked like dual hit jobs against English and Bishop, totally unsubstantiated.

Slater made a number of other claims of sources in his scatter gun attacks during National’s leadership contest.

Today, a month later: Now we know why Bishop’s Snapchat issues were leaked

I looked back at the date that Chris Bishop’s little issue with Snapchat was released to media by Labour associated people.

It was 11 February, just two days after the alleged sexual assaults at the Labour youth camp.

Now we know why. Labour thought they were going to be the news after four youths were allegedly sexually assaulted at the camp.

Cue the attack on Chris Bishop.

Heather Du Plessis-Allan fingered Labour for it back then…

She mustn’t have been one of his sources back then.

In the end, Bishop’s Snapchatting was innocuous and not really a story…

That’s a change from Slater’s very dirty insinuations a month ago.

And – there’s an accuracy fail in today’s assertions. Going by The definitive timeline of Labour’s sex scandal (at Whale Oil):

10/02/18 Day 2 of Young Labour Summer Camp

The alleged sexual assaults are said to have happened late that evening or early the following morning.

11/02/18 Day 3 of Young Labour Summer Camp

  • NZME runs story on Chris Bishop about a mother upset at him for messaging her daughter and other minors.
  • Alleged 20-year-old offender sent home from camp.

Slater’s changed claim is that Labour initiated the attack on Bishop via a story that was probably running through the printing presses about the same time as the offences were happening supposedly happening.

Going by comments, the WO army just lapped up Slater’s latest claims, as they believed his claims a month ago without question. One comment:

So the Chris Bishop smear article wasn’t “a blue on blue hit piece” originating from Bill English’s crew after all? It was Labour putting out covering fire a week before any trace of media coverage? Surely both scenarios can’t be true.

No, both scenarios can’t be true – but both were asserted and believed at WO.

Who to believe? The ‘Cameron Slater’ who wrote last month’s post, or the ‘Cameron Slater’ who wrote today’s post?

Also, this puts some doubt (if any where needed) on ‘several reliable sources’.

Questions asked of Chris Bishop’s social media engagement

Eyebrows have been raised and questions asked of up and coming MP Chris Bishop. Bishop became a National list MP in 2014, and then won the Hutt South seat Trevor Mallard left last year (Mallard moved to the list).

Stuff:  National MP confronted about his social media messages to teenagers

National’s Hutt South MP Chris Bishop was confronted before last year’s election by a mother upset at the older man messaging her daughter and other minors.

Witnesses said Bishop was taken aside and asked to stop what he was doing.

“I wanted to confront him as many parents felt very uncomfortable that their children were messaged,” said a mother who wanted to remain anonymous.

“He admitted it straight away and thanked me for bringing it to his attention.”

Another mother, whose 13-year-old daughter was allegedly in daily contact with Bishop for a week or two on Snapchat, took to Facebook to vent her frustration.

The mother, who also wanted to remain anonymous, allegedly wrote to MP Paul Goldsmith to complain about Bishop’s behaviour.

None of the parents were concerned that Bishop’s intentions were anything other than misguided.

No indication has been given as to why this has been raised now, five or more months later.

The Internet has long been promoted as a way for politicians to engage with the public, but it has it’s risks. Bishop is far from the first MP to get caught in the online minefield. He is young and has been using social media since becoming an MP (before that too no doubt).

The story has prompted some fairly brutal reactions. Te Reo Putake: Bishop’s Head Pawn Push

I hope that isn’t a dirty attempt at word play.

National MP Chris Bishop has been using Snapchat to communicate with schoolgirls. Just let that sink in for a moment … a grown man in a position of power and authority trying to be down with the kids. It’s beyond sad, it’s downright creepy.

Perverts like Snapchat because its point of difference with other social media is that it is designed to be impermanent. No nasty traces of criminal behaviour left behind to be used as evidence in court.

So, is Chris Bishop a perve?

I don’t know, but I think we should be told.

TRP should know about the dangers of speculation on the worst possibility without any evidence of it.

Bishop should immediately release what copies he does have of the conversations, redacted to protect the identities of the young people. Let’s not call them victims yet, until we know the facts.

I look forward to reading the posts and comments on Whaleoil and Kiwiblog calling for Bishop to be sacked and prosecuted, as was the case with a young Labour MP accused of inappropriate behaviour a few years ago. Should I hold my breath?

Is there any comparison? Without knowing who TRP is referring to and without knowing exactly what Bishop had done on Snapchat it’s impossible to know.

The most curious aspect of this weird case of clearly inappropriate behaviour is that Bishop comes to Parliament via a career in drug dealing, just like disgraced Clutha Southland MP Todd Barclay. What is it about the Tobacco/National/Disgrace sequence that top Tories can’t work out?

I really don’t like tobacco, or tobacco companies, and I can’t understand why anyone would preface a political career working for one, but Bishop should be judged by his record as an MP, which has been generally quite promising as far as I’ve seen.

Let me make it simple for Bill English (or whoever is sharpening the knives): if you source your MP’s from the tobacco industry you are picking people with the morals and ethics of the lowest of the low. Don’t feign surprise when they turn out to be wrong ‘uns.

Bishop should explain himself or resign. Maybe both.

In chess, the Bishop is often strategically sacrificed. This might be National’s best move with the weirdo MP for Hutt South.

Why? TRP has cast some fairly dirty aspersions if he is nowhere near the mark. Perhaps he can explain.

Bishop has tried to explain (on social media, Facebook):

There is a pretty upsetting story about me in the Sunday Star Times this morning (I won’t link to it).

Since being elected in 2014 I have placed a real priority on engaging with young people and supporting youth, particularly in the Hutt Valley. As one of the younger MPs in the Parliament I see this as an important part of my job. I have enjoyed being involved in things like setting up the Hutt City Youth Awards and Student Leaders’ events, and supporting the Young Enterprise Scheme, to name a few. During 2017 I spoke to many young people at schools and other events about the importance of voting and our democracy.

As many will know, I am very active on social media and I have corresponded directly with thousands of constituents through various platforms. My intention in being accessible on social media is to help me be an effective MP and it has proven a good way of engaging directly with constituents including young New Zealanders who generally aren’t that engaged in the political process.

In mid-2017 it was suggested to me that I open a Snapchat account, which I did. This proved very popular and lots of people sent me messages through it. I got into the spirit of things and would often reply to messages sent to me. Most messages were of support from people in Lower Hutt, including young people, for me/National.

However, after a few weeks I heard third hand that some parents were unsure about their kids communicating with MPs on social media. I adopted a policy of having a “Story Only” account and only having SnapChat friends that I knew personally.

Every election the media write stories about how young people don’t vote, don’t see any reason to vote, and how politicians are out of touch. I’ve set out to change that. It would be sad if politicians were put off engaging with young people because of stories like this.

Not surprisingly Bishop is trying to play it down. It may have been little, ended by prudent changes in online habits. But it does deserve more of an explanation, or it will leave Bishop open to more TRP type attacks.