The Jim Peron allegations
The gaynz.com website has part one of an in depth investigation into the Jim Peron allegations.
The more details that come out, the more distasteful I find what can only be termed the politics of personal destruction. I know almost all the NZ based players – Jim, Rodney, Lindsay, Matt, Madeleine etc and when this sad affair reaches a conclusion, someone is going to be at the bottom of the heap.
All very sad.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
No tag for this post.
March 22nd, 2005 at 12:21 am
I am absolutely astounded that anyone would comment publicly on this matter without having examined the evidence and the facts and weighed the matters. There are a lot of people making allegations and the allegations are serious, as such caution should reign.
Please note that the first public mention of me having an opinion on this matter was leaked by GayNZ.com who broke all off the record journalistic conventions in doing so and I did not go to them with a story but simply with the phone number of someone who had relayed to me a request that I put that person in touch with Chris Banks.
I have no intention of shooting my mouth off with what we have discovered in our research. The evidence is not all in so I am not happy to speak publicly at this time.
In the event we do decide we have enough to come forward with some kind of statement the authorities will see it before any politician or media outlet.
I am fully aware that the reputations of many including the political futures of more than one political party rest on this matter so you can imagine how disheartened I am that GayNZ.com were not more cautious.
Trust me David, I am not enjoying this position.
Madeleine
March 22nd, 2005 at 12:46 am
DPF, was my comment removed for a reason?
March 22nd, 2005 at 12:52 am
Haven’t you and Matt got a rock to crawl back under somewhere Madds…?
March 22nd, 2005 at 6:18 am
‘I
March 22nd, 2005 at 6:25 am
Mads – I comment on the issue to the extent of what is known publicly, and as it develops. My views remains that allegations of criminal offending should be made in private to the authorities, and that the evidence to date has not revealed anything criminal. If new evidence is presented, I will comment on it.
Chris – I have not removed any post from you.
March 22nd, 2005 at 9:27 am
Maybe Pinocchio was right after all.
Documents from the USA…… I cant wait
March 22nd, 2005 at 10:35 am
Apologies DPF, thought I had posted. Obviously not – my mistake.
March 22nd, 2005 at 11:28 am
Long before Mr Peters got in on the act (like 2003) these allegations and the shit fight surrounding them pretty much decimated the libertarian movement in New Zealand…..
Oh well….
March 22nd, 2005 at 3:49 pm
If the story was pulled it stands to reason that the allegations behind the story were not up to scratch. Given Mr Peron’s strong Libertarian views it would be highly unusual if he would have threatened legal action to halt the story. It would also be unlikely that Mr Hide would want to threaten a national newspaper with legal action over his connection to Mr Peron. Besides the H on S was getting far better stories about taxpayer money lining Dick Hubbards pockets at the time. They didn’t need this sort of cheap nasty filler.
March 23rd, 2005 at 5:33 pm
I don’t understand why these Christian fundamentalists are so intent on hounding a gay man to the point of public ruin at the slightest whiff of an allegation. Oh, actually, I do understand. You people should be ashamed of yourselves.
March 23rd, 2005 at 8:16 pm
Carefully researching the evidence with a desire to present the truth is nothing to be ashamed of.
Shooting your mouth making the assumption that because the researchers are Christians and the accused is gay that therefore the Christians are out to hound the gay man is ridiculous.
There are more gay men who have accused Jim than there are Christians who are researching the evidence. Are Jim’s Gay accusers all out to hound gay men too?
You accused us of bigotry, I suggest you look in the mirror.
I for one am sick of being slandered because I am a Christian. You had no basis at all for making that statement.
If we were hounding him we would be doing what all the media and gaynz.com have been doing and shouting our opinion without bothering to check our facts.
Do you realise that not one media outlet thought to contact the former owner before they wrote that Jim inherited NAMBLA material and NAMBLA meetings in the store from the previous owner? Can you imagine, if you were the owner and you would never have done something like that how it might have felt to have every media outlet in New Zealand printing this about you as if it were fact without even giving you a call to check your side of it?
How do I know the former owner had no contact? Because I did bother to take this step. Incidentally the former owner is also gay and says the opposite to Jim so which gay man so are you going to bash all the media outlets including gaynz.com for printing horrendous lies about him?
One of them is lying and both are gay and all you can do is bash the Christian who bothered to check, the only person caught up in this mission who attempted to be balanced and hear both sides.
I am sick of being abused for my faith by bigots. I have never in my life abused someone for simply being gay. Not once, not ever. Yet I am accused of it constantly by people who fire off the most virulent vitriol in falsely accusing me of having bad motives who clearly do not understand the concept of double standards.
Madeleine Flannagan
http://www.lockefoundation.org.nz
March 24th, 2005 at 1:10 am
Not only did Gaynz make potentially slanderous statements about a Gay man ( the former owner) the only reason they knew Madeleine was involved was because Madeleine gave them the contact details of the former owner, in an effort to assist him in clearing his name.
Interestingly enough the only thing Gaynz did with this information was use it as a basis to attack Madeleine they did not alter their story, retract the initial comments or clarify that the owner disputed their veracity.
Who is it that slanders Gay men if it suits their political agenda again?