Benson-Pope lied
February 28th, 2006 at 10:23 am by David FarrarDavid Benson-Pope in Parliament last year said that “I have not been guilty of, or involved in, any inappropriate behaviour in my 24 years as a secondary school teacher. As well, I am not aware of any complaint of any kind.”
Today we learn that in 1997 the then principal of Bayfield High School did inform Benson-Pope about complaints from parents that he burst into female dormitories, and a shower block, while 14-year-old girls were in various states of undress.
Once again Benson-Pope is in serious trouble – not so much for what he did as a teacher but for how he has handled the issue as an MP.
We saw this again with his response to the latest allegations – he labelled them as nonsense which is clearly designed to imply the girls were making it up. However we learn there was a formal complaint which led to the school policy being changed to make it explicit that teachers should not do what Benson-Pope did.
And when it comes out there was a formal complaint DBP’s spinners suggest that he was never told about it. Hello you really think that a school would hear a complaint about a teacher, change its policy on such situations to stop a repeat, and never ever mention the complaint to the teacher.
Even now after the former principal has stated he did tell DBP, his spokesperson is suggesting the principal is lying.
The next line of defence is that he can’t recall. I doubt many teachers would say that you would forget a formal complaint about you – especially one within the last eight years. Helen Clark of course backs up his I can not recall defence.
As I said two days ago that I thought these latest allegations would mean curtains for DBP and indeed he may be sacked today before question time. Clark now has the grounds she needs being that he misled her personally (Helen regards this as far worse than misleading the country 
And if DBP is sacked it will not be for what he did or did not do as a teacher. But for the way he conducted himself over this whole issue with lies, leaks, attacks on victims etc.
UPDATE: John Armstrong agrees with me saying ” The Prime Minister now has little option but to cut her losses and sack David Benson-Pope”
Related posts:
- The David Benson-Pope Saga
- Benson-Pope accusers step forward
- Benson-Pope has “learned powerful lesson” says PM
- Benson-Pope tries to bully Brownlee
February 28th, 2006 at 10:29 am
Off with his head!! Force a by-election!! Stir up the hornets nest!!
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 10:31 am
The Prime Minister said: “I defy anyone to relate in great detail anything that happened eight years ago.”
When I was in the third form my friends pushed me into the girls showers while the seventh form class was getting changed. I remember THAT in GREAT detail, even though it happened almost eighteen years ago.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 10:33 am
Are questions for oral answer available to the public before Question Time? I would email the Clerk’s office, but as this is a third-world country, the Clerk’s office doesn’t publish an email address on paraliament.govt.nz.
Given the standards the PM herself sets, it’s little wonder she’s standing steadfastly behind Benson-Pope.
She’s still deflecting criticism on Labour’s overspending of $400,000+ of taxpayers money on her pledge card, exonerated herself in the South Canterbury speeding case, and seems to have forgotten about the Taito Philip Field enquiry entirely!
And that’s just for starters!
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 10:36 am
If I were a male teacher I would be getting out of the profession right now. No ifs or buts I would be leaving. This politically driven witch hunt is unbelievable and will no doubt be sending shivers down the spines of many teahcers out there.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 10:38 am
I hope she doesn’t fire him and he brings down the whole damn govt. Unfortunately Helen is too shrewd for that, she knows when its time to cut someone loose. He won’t make question time, not a chance.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 10:38 am
Every single victim in all of BP’s allegations made it up or deserved it because they were bullies.
The Headmaster who is a leftie made it up.
Poor BP, all those people lying about him…
[sarcasm] The other Dunedin Labour MP recently had some mad chick about to attack the prime minister and he heroically saved her and then the chick invented some crap about him assaulting her and violating her free speech.
Dunedin is full of liars. But not the poor Labour MP’s of course.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 10:40 am
Ryan – yes they are published around 1130 am on the Clekr’s website and on Scoop.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 10:48 am
He’s bullet proof.
He’s always had one of those HC Vests.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 10:49 am
And if DBP is sacked it will not be for what he did or did not do as a teacher. But for the way he conducted himself over this whole issue with lies, leaks, attacks on victims etc.
Got it in one. I get the feeling that the tide has turned on this. As I said yesterday, I find some of the implicit assumptions about the latest complaints (including Ian Wishart’s extraordinary pronouncements in a thread here yesterday) disturbing and unwarranted.
But I just don’t think DBP can ask anyone to believe him about anything any more. Clark will not be enjoying her position one bit. I can’t see him lasting much longer, frankly.
Cheers,
Vote:RB
February 28th, 2006 at 10:51 am
“If I were a male teacher I would be getting out of the profession right now. No ifs or buts I would be leaving. This politically driven witch hunt is unbelievable and will no doubt be sending shivers down the spines of many teahcers out there.”
Right. I left. This kind of stuff is a big part of why. Quite simply, if you’re a man and you’re working around children you’re automatically distrusted in many situations. So, I choose not to work around children. I don’t see that’s helpful to the country as a whole, but hey – it’s not like I mind. The pay for teachers is terrible anyway, and if you’ve got the skills to teach you’ve got the skills to do other jobs very effectively.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 11:00 am
Well the PM made her position clear yesterday. I don’t think there will be a sacking, just more monkey business. Perhaps Dr Cullen will have to field the questions today!
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 11:03 am
I can
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 11:06 am
So, is it *still* against parliamentary law for politicians to tell lies?
I thought this was one of the skills of modern politicians.
This law must go!
Vote:It is a relic of that old-fashioned Judeo-Christian value system that all enlightened humanists and socialists discarded long ago.
February 28th, 2006 at 11:08 am
The lefties defence of that lying, leering, cowardly bullying perverted prick truly shows how stupid they really are.
Logix above is one of the most stupid. (refer comments from previous Benson-dope) post by Farrar)
Nothing and no excuse for a male teacher to enter into the shower area of 14 year old school girls. If a teacher did that to one of my daughters who were 14 – I would deck the prick – I would ensure he is embarrassed in front of the whole school and I would ensure he was sacked. I would also ensure the prick would never have anything to do with my daughter again.
The appropriate standard of behaviour for any girl between the ages of 10 and 18 is sensitivity to the fact they are going thru puberty and there are situations where the requirement for privacy (such as washing, dressing) must be respected.
The prick has been found out. He should have been gone by breakfast. Clark is spineless. Rodney deserves this scalp.
The link for Q time is
Vote:http://publications.clerk.parliament.govt.nz.clients.intergen.net.nz/OralQuestions.aspx
February 28th, 2006 at 11:14 am
Its time to go.
There is nothing to be gained by staying as a Minister, and everything to lose.
He needs to offer to resign on the grounds that he has misled Parliament, and cannot hold a ministerial warrant owing to actions that put the Government at risk.
Helen needs to accept that resignation, with regret, in order for stable government to continue.
His refusal to take action, and the PMs frankly bizarre defence of this man, is no longer tenable.
Scott.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 11:15 am
The male teacher in a girls’ school asked the science class: “Who can tell me what organ of the human body expands to 10 times its usual size when
stimulated? Mary, can you tell me?”
Mary blushed furiously as she stood up. Then replied, “Sir, how dare you ask such a question? I will complain to my parents, who will complain to the principal.”
The male teacher was taken aback at first by Mary’s reaction. Then, as understanding dawned on him, he called for another pupil, this time a
volunteer.
Lilly put up her hand. “Yes, Lilly?” asked the teacher.
“Sir, the correct answer is the iris of the eye.”
“Very good. Thanks, Lilly,” said the male teacher.
He then turned to the 1st girl, who threatened to complain to her parents and principal:
“Well, Mary, I have 3 things to tell you:
First, you have NOT done your HOMEWORK.
Second, you have a DIRTY mind.
And thirdly, I fear, one day in future, you are going to be sadly disappointed!”
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 11:16 am
RB – Benson Pope is going to pay the price for the reign of Helen Clark, he was stupid enough to mislead parliament and that was enough. The same will happen to Field and so on, until we get to Helen Card, then we will see some sacrificial lambs.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 11:22 am
If the allegations have nothing in them, WHY ISN’T HE SUING? A more damaging slur is hard to imagine. I bet the Labour feminists are seething. Clark’s attempt to hold the line and protect DBP are farcial, you could almost say thigh-slappingly funny…
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 11:30 am
Question time could be worth having a listen to today
Questions For Oral Answer
As At Tuesday, 28 February 2006
Questions To Ministers
1. JUDITH COLLINS to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What complaints, if any, has he been advised of that could seriously impact on his ability to carry out his job as Minister of Social Development and Employment?
3. Dr DON BRASH to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in all her Ministers; if so, why?
5. Hon BILL ENGLISH to the Minister of Education: Does he agree with the statement of the previous Associate Minister of Education to the House on 12 May 2005, “I have not been guilty of, or involved in, any inappropriate behaviour in my 24 years as a secondary school teacher. As well, I am not aware of any complaint of any kind.”; if not, why not?
ENDS
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 11:32 am
RB – I have always been careful to separate the two out and in fact have said I never saw the tennis ball incident as that serious.
Likewise I haven’t drawn conclusions about the latest allegations except to say they are creepy but not illegal.
If one goes back to the original allegations what really got the bonfire going was when DBP denied anything at all happened. The ‘victims’ were not even involved in the complaints to Hide and Collins. It was only after the denial that they even found out about it and all went downhill from there.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 11:45 am
The male teacher in a girls’ school asked the science class: “Who can tell me what organ of the human body expands to 10 times its usual size when
stimulated? Mary, can you tell me?”
Mary blushed furiously as she stood up. Then replied, “Sir, how dare you ask such a question? I will complain to my parents, who will complain to the principal.”
The male teacher was taken aback at first by Mary’s reaction. Then, as understanding dawned on him, he called for another pupil, this time a
volunteer.
Lilly put up her hand. “Yes, Lilly?” asked the teacher.
“Sir, the correct answer is the iris of the eye.”
“Very good. Thanks, Lilly,” said the male teacher.
He then turned to the 1st girl, who threatened to complain to her parents and principal:
“Well, Mary, I have 3 things to tell you:
First, you have NOT done your HOMEWORK.
Second, you have a DIRTY mind.
And thirdly, I fear, one day in future, you are going to be sadly disappointed!”
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 11:47 am
DPF says: “creepy but not illegal”
The allegation that corporal punishment was used on a student in ’97 is surely one of criminal behaviour, and I’d suggest that allegations that a male walked in a women in various states of undress could be an allegation of offensive or disorderly behaviour against s 4(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 11:53 am
petermck,
Because it suits your agenda, you have rushed to judgement without regard to some possible questions.
1. Why did DBP find it necessary to give these girls a hurry on?
2. None of the girls was unclothed, so what where they actually doing? Pissing about is most likely the answer.
3. Was DBP do this kind of thing repeatedly, is there any actual pattern of abusive behaviour here, or is this just a once off in response to a bunch of girls being prats?
4. Why do you think there is also so much support being expressed for DBP from OTHER pupils, is it because unlike most other teachers he was willing to impose some discipline and order in the place? Where were the women teachers who should have done the job?
5. Was there actually any formal written complaint, or was it just a chat with the headmaster?
I have no idea what the result of all this political pressure will be, but frankly I think it’s gutter politics. There is no-one in Parliament immune to this kind of treatment, and it reminds me of nothing less than Muldoon’s assasination of Colin Moyle.
And Peter…feel free to deck any teacher you want to anytime…and I will personally celebrate your proven stupidity when you get convicted with a serious pre-meditated assualt charge.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 11:57 am
One can argue a ruler on the thighs is not corporal punishment. Something kids might do to each other playing. Rather inappropriate for a teacher though.
I don’t think anyone is seriously suggesting DBP be prosecuted for walking into a changing room in 1997. Unlike the earlier allegations which were of assaults.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
Yeah Russell, I wanted to apologise for my spleen venting yesterday…you didn’t deserve the brunt of it you just happened to be the straw that broke the camel’s back at that moment.
I don’t resile from my belief that worldviews are affecting the way MSM are covering big issues, and I accept that my own worldview has a bearing on my work, but it’s time to stop the pretense that MSM are entirely objective.
It takes much more effort to get MSM to investigate left-wing wrong-doing than it does to excite them into a fever about right wingers.
Ian
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
“he burst into female dormitories, and a shower block, while 14-year-old girls were in various states of undress”
Gosh, the story gets better and better. And all in just a few days. I wonder how long it will be before DBP was clad in a leather arseless gimp suit, 240 volts pulsing through electrodes tightly clamped to his nipples, a javelin through his testicles, beating the girls with his riding crop whilst singing the YMCA.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
I think it is more likely he would be singing “I want you Bad” by The Offspring.
I just don’t get how he can still be in a position of power, but thats right the General New Zealander like the General Stupid Americans only read mainstream media, and still it is seeming to be down=played, It is completely ridiculous that those left wingers continue to get away with it yet the first one who spoke the truth about them “John Tamihare” was sacked within minutes….Oh well, the public is just plain stupid.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
I’m not sure why there is this obsession with suing. As I understand it, anyone making claims about DBP is protected from defamation sanctions by a defence of qualified privilege.
While this defence is limited in NZ – unlike in the US, where it could apply to the College football coaxh – it does apply to MPs.
Primarily, this means that DBP would never be successful in a defamation suit – so why bother?
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
One suspects there is more to this than DBP and his demonstrable lie to Parliament. Naturally he should go. But….
Why has Helen so fervently backed this guy? Does she stand to lose a lot in her own cabinet if DBP is sacked? Are there other issues within Labour such that if DBP is sacked, Helen will lose some of her power base? Whom does she replace him with? Clayton Cosgrove?
And when is Tim Barnett going to beat DBP into shape?
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
I noticed the allegations and stories were getting more sensational as well Andrew.
Vote:It will be interesting to see what happens next as these things have a very big habit of growing especially given the media attention they are now getting.
February 28th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
This is a governance issue the other bits are a side show.Yet again we have evidence of bad governance.We have a set of governance rules.If they are broken then there are penalties that can and should be applied.The problem is that the rules havent been applied for so long our standard of governance has descended to a very low level.This should be of concern to anyone who values living in a parliamentary democracy.When the rule makers break the rules and no sanction is applied then the foundation of that society are undermined. Like others I have been guilty of taking the piss out of the pollies.Its hard not to They keep on painting targets on their foreheads and then wonder why they are shot at.Nevertheless this is a serious matter and must be taken seriously.At the most charitiable it could be said the PM has made an error judgement and backed the wrong horse.unfortuneatly for her this brings into question her credibility and ability to govern.One of the basic hallmarks of a good leader is their ability to surround themselves with good people.She hasnt been able to do so.Even her most loyal supporter would have to concede the number of cases over the past six years where her people has been exposed as unable to follow the rules of good governance.Until we demand and get better standards of governance we will continue to struggle to be a successful society.Hear endith the lesson
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
What I find interesting though is David was elected Member of Parliament for Dunedin South in 1999
(http://www.beehive.govt.nz/Biography.aspx?MinisterID=71)
- so what was his last year of school teaching?
By my reckoning it would have to be 1998, so I would def remember a formal complaint in my last 2 years in a job
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
It’s surprising that the champions of smacking and teacher power from the stone age are getting all in a lather about DBP. Partisan sandwich anyone?
There’s a world of difference between rumour and conviction. Just about every teacher I ever had at school breached some kind of behaviour boundary. If not with violence, then certainly with the threat of it. In most cases it was richly deserved.
My biggest problem with DBP is that he looks like Dick Cheney, right down to the sneer. He seems to have the bullying wankerishness about him too. And, as with Dick Cheney, the man is not under obligation to step down over every rumour promulgated by his political enemies, nor is his leader obliged to make him. When allegations find their way into factual status, then I won’t shed a tear for him at all. I wouldn’t be surprised either. But until then, this is a witch hunt.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
Theres a world of difference between a “rumor” and fact as well Ben.
Are you playing dum or is it not an act?
That he did this has been established. That a formal complaint was made has been acknoledged.
Do I need to get out a dictionary to show you how these things are facts not rumor?
That DBP was not up front about it when confronted is simply recorded fact.
If he’d done a simply “oops, sorry” it would have been a dead issue.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Do I need to get out a dictionary…
The irony.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
DPF – I don’t think anyone thinks Benson-Pope ought to be charged over this, however if the repeal of s 59 will make it illegal for parents to use *any* force against their children (which I believe is your opinion), then the amending of s 59 in 1990(?) made the use of *any* force against students by teachers illegal.
And any of the context surrounding the entering of a girls bathroom or changing area really only goes to a police decision over whether to prosecute (or a judge’s decision – like in the Adern case – to not bother) not whether the allegation is one of potential criminal behaviour.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
The question seems to be – will it be the DPB for DBP? Sounds like a campaign slogan or at least a T Shirt.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 1:18 pm
Murray, perhaps you might want to look up ‘fact’ in the dictionary. Then you might be able to mentally differentiate it from ‘allegation’. While you’re there, look for ‘partisan’, although I suspect the bathroom mirror maybe a better place to find an example thereof.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
Russell Brown is strangely silent today. Hypocritical wanker.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Russell Brown is strangely silent today. Hypocritical wanker.
He’s a hypocritical wanker for daring not to visit kiwiblog every single day of the week?
You have tough standards.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
“Russell Brown is strangely silent today”
Although his PA stablemates David Slack & Graham Reid have weighed in.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
rightkiwi, I think I saw Russel Brown’s name on this thread at 10.49 a.m. What tickles me to death is to see how many lefties sping to Slippery Slope’s defence ‘no matter what.’ They might be interested in the opinion of a genuine lefty, expressed on Radio Left Wing today at a little after 1610. (For lefties, that’s 4.10 p.m.) Chris Trotter made no bones about it. The prick should go. It’s all to do with lack of judgement and credibility and this is rubbing off on Clark. Trotter summed it up beautifully. ‘The man does not possess the judgement needed to warrant a warrant.’
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 7:52 pm
Adolf – you are right. apologies to brown. but, again, he seems saddened only by the politics of it, and still won’t express the outrage he would were it a nat.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 8:55 pm
I have to say, I’m pretty fucking disappointed in the attitude taken by my fellow left-wing, liberal commie commentators (Logix, Ben Wilson, Russell Brown). If this was a tory MP then Mr Benson-Popes actions would have rendered them inarticulate with rage – instead we’re getting feeble complaints about witch hunts and repeats of Clarks dismal Exclusive Brethren moral relativity defense.
The principle here is not that DBP is the subject of a witch hunt – although he is – or that the opposition are running a smear campaign – although they are – they problem is that Benson-Pope has now lied to Parliament and the public on (at least) two separate occasions.
The fact that the opposition forced him into a position where it was much easier and less embarrassing for him to lie is immaterial. They’re the opposition – they’re gonna do that sort of thing.
If we can’t trust the Minister to tell the truth about their past how can we trust them to answer questions about their own duties and actions as a Minister. If Benson-Popes first instinct when faced with a difficult question is to lie and hope he doesn’t get caught then he’s unfit to be a Cabinet Minister.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 9:14 pm
Ben Wilson wrote:
It’s surprising that the champions of smacking and teacher power from the stone age are getting all in a lather about DBP. Partisan sandwich anyone?
I think you’ve eaten them all, Ben. I’m sorry to distrupt your elegant thesis, but I don’t think I’m the only critic of Benson Pope who is pleased that some of the sadistic bullies I observed are now expected to keep their hands (along with the staionary and sports equipment) to themselves; and I support the repeal of S. 59 with qualifications. Nor am I very upset that sexual predators in the teaching profession – regardless of sexual orientation or gender – are finding it a wee bit harder to sexually exploit or humilate students.
More importantly, I’ve seen the enormous damage a tacitly accepted bully culture in school causes. That changes when there is real leadership that doesn’t send mixed messages around standards, real accountability, and standards that apply to everyone and are enforced without fear or favour. As Russell Brown (hardly a partisan foe of the Labour Party or the incumbent Government) has said, how can anyone in the teaching profession or the social services take seriously anything this man says on the subject of professional ethics? At best, his conduct has displayed a stunning disregard for any standards Parliament has imposed on teachers or social workers; at worse, he stood up in Parliament and wilfuly mislead his caucus, the House and the people of New Zealand.
If people don’t actually expect any better from the people they trust to educate their children, I obviously intend to enter the wrong profession.
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 12:20 am
Craig, I don’t see anyone even vaguely suggesting DBP is a sexual predator. As for humiliating students I have personally always disliked such teachers, but I’m surprised to find the right wingers agreeing with me on that. The kind of guys who were all in favour of the caning they got at Grammar schools etc seem to be big advocates of the bullying teacher, until the find him high up in an opposition party.
Bullying teachers were people I didn’t particularly like, but they were typically better than weak teachers who had no control. They were also very much the norm amongst the older male teachers at the time of these allegations.
Danyl, I’m not sure what position you think I’ve taken, other than to say that the jury is still out in an innocent until proven guilty case, and trial by media is a fuxored way to do business. Some *say* he lied but that is by no means proven.
As I already said, I won’t lose sleep if DBP loses his job for some actual misdemeanor, and I don’t even think it’s unlikely, but I would lose sleep if he lost it as a result of unchallenged allegations.
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 8:05 am
Ben wilson wrote:
Craig, I don’t see anyone even vaguely suggesting DBP is a sexual predator.
I reply:
Oh, FFS, Ben. Why don’t you stop spinning out fudge like Willie Wonka on crack, and ask yourself why the Education Ministry or PPTA had guidelines on the subject of teachers and appropriate boundaries in circumestances like this well before 1997? Are Bruce Leadbetter, and every parent who throught they were laying formal complaints about his conduct on that camp, stupid or liars? You seem awfully quick to dismiss them all out of hand.
And I find it amusing that you assert, re: the earlier allegations that, “they were also very much the norm amongst the older male teachers at the time of these allegations.” Well, that’s bullshit Ben. Even Benson Pope himself admitted that gagging and bondage has never been a legally permissible forms of corporal punishment. But, hey, there seem to be an awful lot of folks who were educated at Madame Lash’s Academy for Young Dominatrices.
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 8:25 am
BTW, Ben, while you’re busy accusing every one else of rank hypocrisy over this issue, I find ir rather ironic that you have problems with men sitting next to unaccompanied children on crowded airplanes but no concerns whatsoever about male teachers wandering through female dorms and shower rooms on school camps. What’s that about?
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 8:35 am
I would lose sleep if he lost it as a result of unchallenged allegations.
Once again, it’s not that the allegations are unchallenged – it’s the fact that DBP denied any allegations were made when he knew damn well they had been.
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 8:37 am
Danyl,
I can see where you are coming from, still I tend not to get inarticulate with rage about Tories unless they do something like start a war that has no moral purpose, evident exit strategy, or spray DU about other people’s landscapes.
Again Ben has pretty much said it for me; I’m no fan of the bully culture that is what passed for management in so many of our secondary schools, and I should know being an ex-Auckland Grammar type. At the same time teenagers in groups will behave very badly given half a chance, and weak teachers who failed to respond were much worse than those who did. This is evidenced by the large number of other students who have come out to support DBP because he did have sufficient control in order to be able to teach effectively.
By contrast I recall sadly one math teacher who I had for both my critical 6&7th Form years; lovely guy, perfectly competent mathematician….but he couldn’t control a class for nuts, even a 6B class, allegedly a top stream of pupils anywhere in the country. His classes always just slowly dissolved into farce, the result being that my math at Uni was always weaker than I would have liked, which has had lifelong consequences. By contrast the canings I got from another well-known teacher from the same school (who really was a bully) seem to have faded.
Do I still like bully’s…fuck no…but at least I could evade them, whereas the unavoidable consequences of weak teaching have stayed with me all my life. All the effective teachers I recall, even at Grammar, were open to being labelled “bullys” when looked at it from an adult perspective. But teenagers, esp 14yr old girls are NOT adults….and controlling bunches of them on a school camp…is not a job for someone who stands around feebly wringing their hands bleating,”Please children, it’s time for bed.”
Should our secondary schools all be staffed with charismatic education warriors, who by sheer charm of their radiant personalities and leadership, instill both discipline and learning in our well-ordered and receptive youth? Well I wish….but the reality is compromised by the inclination of teenagers to be god-awful little shits, and frustrated teachers to responding by behaving like little dictators.
Getting NZ to acknowledge and start talking about this prevalent “bully culture” in our schools has been a long and uphill struggle, and a process far from complete. A friend of mine is a Head at a major secondary school that I can see out of the window as I write. He spends almost 80% of his non-administrative time dealing with student and parental behaviour issues, and tells me how attempting to deal constructively with them soaks up enormous resources, both physical and emotional. It is not a role I would tackle, it is largely the fact of him being a life-long committed Christian, that gives him the purpose and focus to undertake such draining work. In contrast to this approach, for most of their their history our schools have resorted to the “pull your fucking socks up sonny” method of class control…partly because it is what was expected, and partly because there just weren’t the resources to do better.
But what I see herewith DBP is a partisian agenda to hijack a legitimate agenda, bullying in schools, for a political smear…which in itself is just a another form of bullying, but written on the wider stage of the nation’s political life. Politically DBP’s background as an effective teacher is being exploited with the old “have you stopped beating your wife” approach to character assasination.
It’s no prettier to watch it in Parliament, than it was to see it carried out in the classroom.
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 8:45 am
What I find most disturbing is the lack of outrage from feminists (including ‘she who must be obeyed’) on this latest accusation, they have been a very large vocal advocates for historic rape claims and that females should always be believed but again are quiet on this front. Their silence should be taken as support and in the case of the PM is actual support
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 8:47 am
Craig, you’re treading on extremely thin ice here. There’s absolutely no evidence whatsoever that DBP was any kind of sexual predator. These incidents could just as likely be a manifestation of a temper problem. After all, “storming in” isn’t exactly the best way to get an eyefull, is it? If he’d got caught peeping through a chink in the wall I might be inclined to agree with you, but marching in on the double and demanding people hurry up just strikes me as a man with a short fuse trying to hurry up some slow-moving pupils and not thinking too hard about exactly how his actions could look to others.
If you have any respect for male teachers whatsoever you’ll step back from that particular line. It’s that kind of attitude which makes teaching just not worthwhile anymore for many men, because given the hint of a situation that could be interpreted more than one way you’re quite happy to scream “Pervert!”. And try as hard as you might, those situations do arise to some degree for everybody.
I distinctly remember one particular occasion which was quite pivotal in me quitting school teaching. I had finished for the day and, since I had somewhere to be that particular day, left at the same time as the students for a change. As I was walking out of the school one of my (female, 4th form) students came up to me and asked me a question. So I talked to her until I reached the gate of the school, answering her question. Then I said goodbye and walked off. As I was walking away I saw her waiting mother giving me the biggest “You’re-a-filthy-pervert” look I’ve ever had. I’d had a pretty bad day, and that was a pivotal moment in me deciding that teaching just wasn’t worth the fucking hassle. I’d rather go do a job where the pay is higher and I don’t stand a chance of being accused of being some kind of paedophile.
Personally I’d never behave the way DBP is reported to have behaved in any of the incidents made public so far. And I’m quite happy to believe that formal complaints were made and communicated to him – justifiably so. He went over the line. But with that said, he strikes me as a man with a temper problem more than anything else. Your implied conclusion that he’s a pervert with a sexual interest in his 14-year-old female students is totally unjustifiable from the evidence so far, and to be honest I think you’re really fucking low for posting it. You don’t accuse a man of that kind of behavior unless you have good, unambiguous evidence. Particularly not a teacher, present or former.
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 9:16 am
Err:
Why don’t you pop down to your local primary school and see if you can pass a basic reading comprehension test? If you want to bloviate about thin ice, I’d like you to consider that I don’t take kindly to wilful misrepresentation of what I’ve said in very plain English.
There is one passage that is worthy of response though:
If you have any respect for male teachers whatsoever you’ll step back from that particular line. It’s that kind of attitude which makes teaching just not worthwhile anymore for many men, because given the hint of a situation that could be interpreted more than one way you’re quite happy to scream “Pervert!”. And try as hard as you might, those situations do arise to some degree for everybody.
Just wait a second while I tune up the world’s smallest violin. I have enormous respect for male teachers, men whose integrity and professionalism I consider beyond question – if I didn’t, I wouldn’t be considering entering the profession myself. (A profession, need I add, that enjoys very high levels of public regard.) What I don’t have respect for is poor leadership, or people who develop selective memory loss when their own conduct is held up to examination. Sorry, I just can’t believe that a senior teacher never read Education Ministry or PPTA guidelines directly relevant to his responsibilities as a HOD. I can’t believe everyone except him is stupid or flat out lying. I can’t believe that the teaching profession deserves a Government that preaches on standard of conduct to everyone else, but starts throwing up the smokescreens when those standards hit too close for political comfort. (And one male teacher of my aquaintance put it brilliantly: “If a school behaved like this, Benson Pope would be the first one screaming for the Principal and Board to be sacked.” And at his school, there’s been a clear policy in place for at least a decade that he supervises the boys on camps, and stays the fuck away from the female dorms and showers. Not exactly rocket science, Err.)
If anything, I believe Benson Pope has done more damage to the reputation of men in the teaching profession than I ever could. Think about that for a bit, and please spare me the reverse sexist special pleading. It’s pathetic.
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 9:40 am
Craig,
As one who is hoping to enter the teaching profession, I would have hoped you might have paused before blowing off someone who has been there and was telling what it was really like.
1. This is politcal smear at it’s worst, with clear undertones of “sexual predator”.
2. It relates to an incident 8 years ago….forgettting or failing to recall things that old is a feature of human memory. Maybe your memory is perfect Craig, but trust me, by the time you are over 50 it will not be so.
3. Even Bruce Leadbetter cannot recall if he ever showed any letters of complaint to DBP, nor does it appear that the complaint was every made formal. It seems that Leadbetter had a conversation with DPB and the exact details and import of it is hazy with both men.
4. At this stage there is no evidence that there was ever ANY formal complaint made against DPB that appears in the written record.
I’m sorry Craig, I actually appreciate much of what you say, but for all your perspicacity, you still have some more rude surprises awaiting for you in life. One of them is just how vulnerable older men are to historic, mischevious and false allegations of sexual misconduct. Been there, had that done to me…do I need to say more?
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 10:00 am
The complaints made about Benson-Pope were significant enough for the school to change its policies. I want an MP who can’t remember such complaints even less than I want an MP who lied about them.
It doesn’t matter that Benson-Pope lied because he was the target of a smear campaign – what matters is that he lied (and that was the whole point of the oppositions attack).
The National Party now have DBP exactly where they want him – they can now throw any accusation or charge that they like at him and when he denies it they can bring up this whole sordid mess all over again and ask him why they should take him at his word.
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 10:06 am
Ben and others:
This isn’t an “innocent until proven guilty” case because it will never be taken to court (it is an ethical matter rather than a legal one) so as long as Benson-Pope continues to deny, nothing will ever be “proven” in that sense. Moreover, the test for such situations is hardly “beyond reasonable doubt” as it would be for a murder trial. The standard is not even what it would be for an employment dispute where evidence must be carefully weighed, because Benson Pope is not an employee in the usual sense. The test is surely a political and ethical one: on the face of it, is this guy fit to be of our nation’s leaders? And it is inexplicable to most people that Helen Clark seems to think the answer to that question remains “yes”.
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 10:11 am
Ahhh, Craig, you are wasted as a political writer, you should have been a poet. “spinning out fudge like Willie Wonka on crack”, that’s almost an epigram. Fudge, the shit that tastes sweet?
Unlike your own brand which has the traditional shitty flavour, especially where misrepresenting people is concerned.
I have not accused the people who made formal complaints (if that happened) of being liars, or dismissed them out of hand. But nor, does it seem, were they there in the said showers or dormitory, so they’ve got about as much idea of what went on as you do.
Nor did I say it was the norm to have allegations laid. If you read what I said before flying off the handle (is it before-coffee-time where you are?), you’ll notice what I said was the norm was for teachers of his age at that time was to be bullies. And I didn’t even go to a caning school, but still I felt that way – the older men controlled classes with threats, that was their modus operandi. And I also observe that mostly it worked, even if I personally didn’t like it.
And lastly, your observation that I don’t have a problem with Air New Zealands policy being hypocritical. If you ever read what I had to say on that issue, you will realize that I’ve always maintained their policy probably isn’t to do with paedophilia at all, and more to do with stopping kids bawling through flights. I feel fairly sure if any unaccompanied children had to sit next to you in the kind of mood you seem to be in this morning, they’d be screaming to high heaven.
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 10:27 am
Danyl,
So smear politics don’t matter? It is the old dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t method….the “when did you stop beating your wife” question. As the target of a smear campaign, you know the motives of those attacking you are not honest, and that if you are transparently open and honest in response, you are just setting yourself up for a second round of being wonked. There are perfectly acceptable processes for holding people to account, and HC has sacked people for making serious errors of political judgement….at the same time there is every reason to defend yourself from malicious attack.
And then there is the matter of proportion; funny how GW Bush can lie his way into a fucking war, and everyone gives him the benefit of the doubt, but giving some 14yr old schoolgirls the hurry up is the end of the world.
Or look at the mindless blather on another thread about Michelle Boag….is this what politics in this country is heading for? This kind of personal smear, unsubstantiated allegation, double standard, hypocritical scandal mongering is an abyss in which real corruption WILL thrive.
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 10:40 am
Logix -
Care to give us a summary of issues for which you feel it is acceptable to lie to parliament about, and which are not? Maybe they can get put into standing orders, so that MPs will have something to reference when they tell their porkies.
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 10:41 am
rightkiwi, it isn’t a court case, but I submit to you that ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is a moral principle as well as a legal one. When you are accusing someone of sexual misconduct in the court of public opinion people who have any sense of fairness at all will use that standard in their minds, even if the bulk of people love to rapidly judge and convict.
But the accusation isn’t even that serious, it seems. He’s being accused of lying about what he can remember about a formal complaint. Well, it’s quite possible that the complaint wasn’t as formal as you are all making out. It seems that DBP answered the letter of the question, not the spirit, in Clintonesque style. That was dissembling of him. It’s not a high crime, any more than numerous other lapses of specific memory without clarification made by politicians in a desperate attempt to avoid a smear.
I never thought much of Labour’s smear job on Brash over the EB either. Smearing is dishonorable, in my opinion. That particular one was in response to a smear job by the EB, and many other smears that year against Labour, so I guess the gloves were off, but it wasn’t a clincher for me. I felt Labour had been dragged down to a lower level by a lower level opponent, and I feel that way about DBP too.
If smearing is all the opposition have, then the political right is up shit creek here. It is transparently a cover up for lacking any positive ideas.
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 11:17 am
Care to point us to the written record of formal complaint from the School Board against DPB? Any disciplinary procedings on the record? Any formal letters of warning on file? If any of these things exist that DPB must have been aware of…then denying them would have been an incontrovertable case of misleading Parliament…and yes I agree that would be a resigning offence. But to my mind there is a clear distinction between a complaint from a parent (written or not) and a determination from a Board, Head or a professional body, that grounds exist for formal rebuke or discipline.
The evidence is that DPB lost his tit with a bunch of girls pissing about defying his authority and made a stupid mistake in entering the changing rooms and the dorms. Later Leadbetter got some complaints from parents (who not being present were of course inclined to believe the version their darling little angels chose to tell them)….who then dragged DPB onto his office carpet and pointed out to that he had made a error of judgment…and that in order to cover everyone arse they had better modify the school policy to make the position clear.
Now both my parents were teachers, my mother taught for decades, and I can absolutely assure you that this kind of shit went down all the time. Parents routinely make complaints about teachers at one level or another. Teachers do make mistakes and errors of judgement, but most of them do not justify formal professional discipline…and turning one of these into a political hatchet job 8 years later …is as Ben put it…a dishonorable thing to be doing, in an environment desperately short on it.
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 12:07 pm
My mum’s always been a teacher, and my dad was briefly, before moving on to being a child psychologist. They’ve never mentioned any formal complaints to me, but that’s anecdotal evidence. They may never have told me even if they did occur. My father had to deal with highly disturbed children all the time, and he makes no bones of the fact that kids will make stuff up, that their testimony is always suspect. But he also said they do get abused, especially the disturbed ones (that’s often why they are disturbed), so rules to protect them have come more and more into play over the years, usually with great resistance from the political right, and old dinosaur teachers get caught out a lot. 99% of the time what they are doing is harmless and foolishly old skool, rather than malicious, but we are protecting the other 1% of cases.
He told me the other day of one girl they wanted his help with. He absolutely point blank refused to do it unless he could get assurance that he would not be left alone with her. Another teacher had to be present. That is what it is like *these days*. And he was not lamenting this, just pointing out that things were different in the past, that he could get a hell of a lot more done when he could get kids alone away from teachers that may have frightened them, away from distracting stimulus of any kind, and really find out what was up. Not possible now.
To accuse someone of being in that 1% is very, very serious. I would not do it on a public forum at all, unless I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was truth. Doing it in parliament is especially cowardly, something I’ve never respected Winston Peters for. And I don’t respect the Nats for homing in on it either. I even sensed conflict in nice old Don Brash over it – his voice wavered many times during the questioning, as if he felt what he was doing was wrong. He was probably wondering when a nice old gent like himself was going to get a public thrashing for some retrospective breach of protocol. Did he get to cane someone when he was a school prefect? Will extramarital affairs be frowned upon deeply in future? Who knows where such tactics will lead? Nowhere good, I think.
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Logix says: “Both my parents were teachers, my mother taught for decades, and I can absolutely assure you that this kind of shit went down all the time. Parents routinely make complaints about teachers at one level or another.”
Insofar as you are right, why then did BP say to Parliament that there had NEVER been a complaint against him and that such allegations were “ridiculous” and “a nonsense” and that e “refutes” them?
It seems certain that, at least, he was at least a bit more sleazy and dodgy than the average teacher — and more prepared to lie to Parliament than most other MPs from across the political spectrum.
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 1:06 pm
If any of you experienced similar allegations, would your current moral outrage be sufficient to substantiate them?
In a hypothetical case, how should we properly substantiate such allegations against yourselves?
Allegations, rumours, gossip, lies, self-defence … little tricks of memory, memory lapses … more ‘lies’…
All very human of us – each one of us, at some point(s) in our lives.
What’s wrong with New Zealand these days? Witch-hunts!
Mr. Brash may yet fall over this ‘kangaroo court’ he’s managing. It ain’t smart politics.
Some ‘Holier-than-thou’ land mass on the edge of the world stands on slander, rumour, and allegations made. The Aussies, Brits, Yanks and Canucks must be laughing at us again…
We’ll be on the John Stewart Daily Show again for nonsense.
No wonder people leave us.
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 1:13 pm
rightkiwi,
“It seems certain that, at least, he was at least a bit more sleazy and dodgy than the average teacher — and more prepared to lie to Parliament than most other MPs from across the political spectrum.”
LOL, that’s a big call. I wonder if this saga is going to usher in a new era of digging through the past employment and general conduct of many members of parliament? Great.
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 1:19 pm
rightkiwi,
I was also drawing a distinction between the kind of thing where parents make complaints (only some of which will turn out to have substance) and formal complaints where it has been determined by the Head, the Board, etc, that professional standards have been seriously breached and action is required.
Now the former are common enough in many forms, but DBP can fall back on the old disembling “answer the letter of the question” rather than it’s spirit. Now if he is the first Minister to have done that in all of history I will cheerfully fund you all to a whole night of rounds at the Backbencher.
When under malicious smear attack, the time-honoured response is the evasive half-truth. You know I would take all this far more seriously if someone had been actually harmed here, if DBP’s actions could be shown to be dangerous or predatory, as distinct from just plain Jurassic.
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 1:57 pm
The left’s defence of this guy would be hilarious if it wasn’t so disgraceful. One of the useful things the Labour Party has done over the last few decades, in the 60s, 70s and 80s and beyond, is change public attitudes so that humiliating kids at school, assaulting them, pinching girls on the bum, taking peeps at their tits at work etc etc are no longer acceptable. They have spent years condemning the patriarchy for allowing these behaviours. Now one of their own is caught, and the message is that the allegations shouldn’t be taken seriously unless the women making them are prepared to go to the police! Can’t the lefties commenting here see how appalling that is?
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 2:14 pm
rightkiwi,
With any luck one day you will get smeared with something dug up from your past that you find hard to defend. You will at that moment change your tune.
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 2:16 pm
I’m trying not to look at this in terms of ‘left’ or ‘right’, or in terms of acceptable behavioural norms in teachers (hell, we’ve all had our experiences with “hard-men” teachers doing their bad-cop routines).
Two issues here for me: one is that an MP is being caught out repeatedly for, at worst, deliberately lying, at best, such a chronic failure of memory that his competence for his elected job should be called into question. Now he aint the first public figure to have such an appalling memory, and he won’t be the last, but he should be held to standards of behaviour now, regardless of political affiliation.
Second issue is the changing norms of what is considered acceptable teacher behaviour. Again, like all of us, when I was at school I experienced teacher behaviour that with the benefit of hindsight was beyond the pale. But I do have some sympathy for those old-school dinosaurs – they were employing the language and behaviours of the time, and jaysus, I can remember what teenagers are like some of the student behaviour was absolutely savage!. There had to be at least one ‘hard-man’ teacher to even up the odds!.
So who’d be a teacher?. Shit money, expected to behave like a saint, and deal with a room full of teenagers at the same time! – they should be getting danger money.
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 2:36 pm
rightkiwi:
No-one has been caught at anything.
These are allegations only.
No-one has proved anything.
Mr. Benson-Pope has not been charged with anything.
Nor have you. And I would not believe any rumour that you had.
Should New Zealanders report alleged incidents to their grannies?
You perhaps unintentionally cast aspersions upon our fine New Zealand Police men and women. They deserve our respect and support. The New Zealand Police perform a key function in our democracy.
Are you a conservative?
I am too, and I support the NZ Police in their fine work.
So, let the plaintiffs come forward.
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 3:54 pm
rightkiwi, those things are not acceptable. Nor is slander relating to them, so that’s why we’re not rushing to condemn someone for what none of us are sure of our facts on.
I personally wouldn’t want Benson Pope as my teacher just off the rumour mill, but he’s not a teacher now, man. If he’s a bully that probably makes him good at getting stuff done in government, which is his current job.
I’m not saying the allegations are irrelevant if they weren’t taken to the police. I’m saying they weren’t proven, so they remain allegations.
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Ben, in life we make judgements based on information. What level of proof would you require? How would you personally ever be able to say you were sure of the facts behind this? Isn’t it enough that some DOZENS of people seem now to be complaining about him (and a few others say they didn’t see anything and have written to Helen Clark)?
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Logix: Ever think that maybe he’s finding it hard to defend himself because the allegations are true? I can’t think of anything about which I would have this much difficulty defending myself against. Is the test now, “oh poor bloke, he’s finding it hard to defend himself – it must all be a load of rubbish then!” What on earth are you saying?
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 4:50 pm
Logix: Ever think that maybe he’s finding it hard to defend himself because the allegations are true? I can’t think of anything about which I would have this much difficulty defending myself against. Is the test now, “oh poor bloke, he’s finding it hard to defend himself – it must all be a load of rubbish then!” What on earth are you saying?
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 4:55 pm
James: The main reason people shouldn’t have to take this to the police is because they aren’t probably aren’t serious crimes and probably not criminal prosecution. That doesn’t make them unimportant. Moreover, are you saying people must go to the police or simply do nothing? Are you saying a woman who is beaten up by her spouse shouldn’t call Women’s Refuge unless they are also prepared to call the cops? What if her husband is the local cop in a small town? What if she doesn’t want him arrested but just wants to be safe? I have never heard an argument that unless you call the cops you are not entitled to any other protection or remedy. Think before you type pal.
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 5:05 pm
I would say I was much surer of the facts behind this case if some formal process had ever been entered into at the time. Now a bunch of people piling on because he’s a powerful politician and they always didn’t like him is starting to just look like a partisan witch hunt.
Mud sticks, and I’d be surprised if DBP survives this. But shitslingers open the doors of bad behaviour on themselves too. Frankly I’m starting to think that it might be the best thing to happen, if National play all their aces now and find Labour have the joker and all the high trumps. They’ve quite probably just been holding these cards, waiting patiently for the weak hand to be played.
It’s a pity though, because unlike in cards, in politics you don’t have to play every dirty card you get.
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 5:14 pm
rightkiwi,
Sorry I failed to spell out what I was saying in excruciating detail, so of course I apologise that you naturally misconstrued it.
Every single one of us over a certain age, has done something that with hindsight can have the worst possible intepretation put on it and yet despite our innocence, it can prove exceedingly hard to defend against such an attack.
Maybe the allegations are true, maybe DBP was getting his jollies perving on the girls….and hey you are free to leap to any conclusion you want…it’s a free old country. After all you are going to believe what you want to believe, but the place were the actual truth of such allegations is determined, for better or for worse, is in the Courts.
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 6:29 am
righkiwi
A key word here is ‘report’
If an incident is reported, then it is – by definition – made known to the authorities. Who are the authorities? Not your grannie, for example.
In New Zealand, the authority is the Law (Common Law)
Not a girls group or women’s shelter or other association.
No-one else has the privilege-right of applying just sanctions in a our society.
No-one. Not you, or I, or Brash’s witch-hunters.
Just the Law.
Simple.
The reasons why your grannie – groupings are secondary or tertiary in importance is simple:
The necessity of taming naked force and directing force to the maintenance of order in our society.
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 6:44 am
rightkiwi:
forgot to ask: are you really a conservative?
you appear to be left-of-centre.
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 7:08 am
James, I am absolutely amazed that you think only the state can “apply just sanctions” in our society. If one of my staff are lazy or lie to me about a work matter, are you saying I shouldn’t be able to reprimand or sack them without applying first to the Employment Relations Authority!!!??? There are “just sanctions” applied all the time. In this case, Helen Clark should apply “just sanctions” to Benson Pope for lying to her and the public and sack him. What sort of statist are you that the only things about which we are able to have views or act upon are criminal matters involving the police???
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 7:27 am
logix: for god’s sake, you say that “the place were the actual truth of such allegations is determined, for better or for worse, is in the Courts”!!!! If I stare down my PA’s top all the time, it is not a matter for the courts, but it might say something about me that my boss wants to take into account when deciding to renew my contract. If I dispute the matter, are you saying that my boss can’t do anything until a court makes a ruling!!!??? The entire economy would come to a stop under that test (as it often seems to close to, even under current law, let alone requiring EVERYTHING to go to the courts).
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 7:42 am
rightkiwi, the difference here is that the judgements are being made not by people with actual, first hand experience but by people like you. Who, after all, don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about and are just reading media reports.
That’s what courts are for – they are the finders of fact from evidence. If your standard of evidence is lower than that of a court then you can’t realistically claim to be talking about facts. It’s all conjecture and allegation until that standard of evidence has been met.
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 8:03 am
err …. the facts are being laid out by people with first hand knowledge, the victims. Why wouldn’t a decent person believe them over a scum bag leftist politician like benson pope, who has also earned a nasty reputation in the short time he has been in parliament. your standard of proof seems to be that accusers must be implicitly accused themselves of being liars.
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 8:26 am
rightkiwi, allegations are being laid out. If you want to find those to be facts there are certain standards of proof required, and unless you apply those standards I don’t think you have any position to be talking about facts. Otherwise it’s all just a big popularity contest.
It’s not a question of “accusers must be implicitly accused themselves” blah blah waffle waffle, it’s quite simply this: You cannot find fact from either accusation or denial. If you claim to be finding facts from either then you’re a simple-minded fool. You are hearing allegations and denials. So talk about them as such. That does not cast aspersions on either party. When it comes to facts, you have a higher standard of proof to meet.
Your argument seems to be “When there are allegations and denials then we are forced to choose who we believe and then decide that to be fact”. That is bullshit.
That’s all.
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 8:48 am
Of course, there is the matter that a complaint was made about DBP by another teacher that resulted in mediation and DBP having to make a written apology. I guess he “doesn’t recall” this either?
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 10:13 am
err.. yes, my argument is “When there are allegations and denials then we are forced to choose who we believe and then decide that to be fact”. What else would a judge and jury do (if such a matter were ever to go to the courts)? I am still struggling to understand the “higher standard of proof” that you seek — that a jury tells you what to think? No judge and jury ever told me that the person sitting next to me at a cafe has hot coffee but it is reasonable to assume this to be the case based on the balance of evidence around me. Moreover, is it a “balance of probabilities” or “beyond reasonable doubt” standard you are seeking you the BP case???
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 10:23 am
rightkiwi, there’s a big difference between the standard of proof required to take something before a court and the media reports that have been batted about over the last few days. If you are making judgements of fact at this stage then I would have to say that you’re being intellectually lazy.
And as for your analogy… again, you’ve chosen an example (you sitting in a cafe) which places you on the scene and able to investigate, observe independently and reach a reasoned conclusion. You are, in reality, closer to guessing that somebody’s cup of coffee is hot based on a picture of them in the background of a newpaper photograph.
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 10:26 am
Spam:
Speculation. Irrelevant. Next…
New Zealand Common Law.
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 11:06 am
No James, its NOT irrelevant.
DBP says that he was not aware of any complaints made against him.
We have one case where a formal complaint was proven to have been made about DBP – arguing (as some have done) that it wasn’t ‘formalised’ because it wasn’t shown to the Board of Trustees is semantics, and more shows the incompetence of the principal. Whilst the principal says he spoke to DBP about it, but may not have shown him the letter, gives DBP an out, albeit a very tenuous one. “He was not aware of a complaint because he wasn’t shown one”.
He can’t use that excuse for the case where he was actually made to offer a formal written apology to a complaint made by another teacher. There is no way that ANYONE will believe that he was not aware of it!
You can dismiss whether or not it actually happened as ‘speculation’ – but you would do well to actually ask yourself what you think the likelihood that it isn’t true is. If this was a fabrication, then DBP would be quite right to sue for defamation. Is he going to do that?
Call it trial by media if you like, but the weight of evidence is starting to mount against DBP, and personally I am more inclined to believe the woman who raised this than DBP (who actually hasn’t even commented on this yet – I hope it is put to him).
Remember: The main issue here is whether he lied to parliament.
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 11:10 am
rightkiwi:
We should abide by the Law in New Zealand.
In secular New Zealand society, can you name a higher authority?
Persons’ efforts to try offenders, and the smouldering vendettas etc which could arise from self-help in the absence of an official monopoly of ‘sanctions’, may be serious.
There must be an agency specifically empowered to ascertain finally and authoritatively, the facts. That authority is the Law (Common Law) in NZ.
The Law.
Judicial process, proper administration of justice,…whatever. It’s the Law.
The Law is not Mr. Brash’s witch-hunt.
The Law is not Judith Collins’ Kangaroo Court.
The Law is not your own views, biases, and prejudices, or intolerances.
The Law is not the efforts of Mr. Hide.
The Law is not what you heard on the grapevine, read on a blog, or feel or believe or wish or just ‘know’ to be true.
Get it?
It’s the Law.
Can’t fight it, can you?
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 11:14 am
so err, unless you are on the scene you refuse to make conclusions about anything do you? are you prepared to say “for a fact” that there has been an invasion of iraq? is it “a fact” that canada has recently had a change of government? is it “a fact” that, say, “Janice Curd discovered she had breast cancer” — see http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3589624a11,00.html
Are you really trying to say that unless you have direct personal experience of something you will never reach a conclusion? You must be very confused about life then, and must have spent too long studying descartes. most of us reach reasonable conclusions based on sources of authority, which may not meet cartian (or court) standards, but, as spam says above, the weight of evidence is clearly against BP and it is starting to sound a bit silly for people to say they need to wait for the “facts” to emerge – especially when you seem to think we need to wait for a ruling from the Supreme COurt …
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 11:24 am
Spam:
No, still wrong.
Under New Zealand Law, the burden of proof is placed on the complainant(s).
It’s our Law. It’s called Common Law.
It is not the case that the burden of proof is placed on the accused.
That is another Law. That Law is named Napoleonic Code. (Quebec, France etc)
But not New Zealand. Here, we abide by the Common Law.
Under Common Law, there is no onus of proof placed upon Mr. Benson-Pope. None. At all.
That’s the Law here.
As I pointed out to ‘rightkiwi’, what you feel, or ‘know’ or wish, or hope, or plain believe to be true ….. is not the Law. No, you are incorrect, but well-intentioned I am sure.
The Law.
In New Zealand.
Abide by it.
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 11:30 am
James – why do you see this as a legal issue? Are you some sort of undergraduate law student? Are you saying that people may not make allegations or reach conclusions independently from the courts? That people who do make well-founded allegations or reach reasonable conclusions and express them are somehow outside the law? What an odd statist perspective. What case have you read that suggests that is the Common Law? And to what extent does the common law determine the facts? My understanding is that the common law is applied to sets of facts. Do you honestly think this guy has been treated unfairly? He has had ample opportunity to deny the allegations, use the common law to launch a defamation action, use parliament to set the record straight (where he would even be protected by privilege). He is not doing this because he did do much if not all of what he was accused of doing. Perhaps you could explain how you think this matter should be handled from here on?
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 11:50 am
James:
The fact is that an allegation has been made in the media which calls into doubt a key statement made by DBP.
Burden of proof is only required to get a conviction – not to make an allegation.
If you do make an allegation that you cannot substaniate, you can be sued for defamation – which is exactly what I said previously.
Given that the allegation relates to the same issue, then this allegation is relevant to that issue. You claim it isn’t. It is my opinion that you are wrong.
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 11:58 am
James: BTW:
Teacher won ‘bullying’ apology
A former Bayfield High School teacher yesterday confirmed she received a personal apology from Dunedin South MP David Benson-Pope after complaining of being harassed and bullied by him during his teaching career.
Details of the complaint are contained in a New Zealand Police report released last year on the allegations of misconduct against Mr Benson-Pope while a teacher at Bayfield High School. The report was tabled in Parliament yesterday by Act MP Rodney Hide.
The former teacher, who wished to remain anonymous, was contacted in Auckland yesterday by the Otago Daily Times and said Mr Benson-Pope put her through about two years of “hell”.
“He made my life a misery for quite some time.”
The police report tells of how the teacher, who was at the school from 1971 to 1999, was bullied and harassed verbally and by his actions.
“In the end, I walked out of Bayfield and threatened to go to the Human Rights Commission before anything was done about it,” her statement to police said.
“Then there was mediation and eventually I got an apology letter from him and it didn’t happen again.”
She also got a personal apology and handshake from him, she said.
He would shout at her across the staffroom, remove things from her room and make disparaging remarks about her children, all to undermine her authority, she said.
She had been told one of the reasons for his actions was because she was up for a position of responsibility, one that he was keen for his girlfriend at the time to get.
She described Mr Benson-Pope as a capable, intelligent man and did not have any ill feelings for him.
“Why he was so bloody awful I don’t know.”
She believed he admired her for standing up to him, something many did not do. “Maybe, if more had, he would not be in this mess today.”
Looks like this allegation has been investigated by the police – as part of the report which concluded that there was a prima facie case. Seems that they thought there was sufficient evidence to justify this being put to the Courts. Regardless of what you say.
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 12:41 pm
rightkiwi:
Yes, I do think it’s a legal case, with ramifications beyond the law. It’s very simple:
Allegations have been made. And essentially they are just assertions without proof. They remain claims until they are proved. The claimants carry the burden of proof. Not Mr. Benson-Pope.
A well-founded allegation still remains an allegation. It changes if the claimant can prove the claim. Until then, your well-founded allegation is just a claim unproved. This stuff is basic mate.
Certainly, Mr. Brownlee or Mr. Brash or Mr. Benson-Pope or yourself would be entitled to due process under our Laws, if facing such allegations.
Again, you and others refer to ‘this matter’. But you are really speaking of allegations others have made. That’s all you know: allegations were made. Claims unproved.
You are not part of the procedural due process affecting Mr. Benson-Pope unless you too have made allegations and are lodging a complaint. All this stuff is basic mate.
This man has not been charged with anything.
If you think he should be, then you must engage our legal system.
Not Mr. Brash’s witch-hunt.
Not Ms. Collin’s Kangaroo Court.
Not Mr. Hide’s salacious rhetoric.
Yes, it’s a developing legal case.
Finally, why is it unfair?
rightkiwi commits an old fallacy which answers his own question on fairness. It’s rightkiwi’s appeal to ignorance:
“He is not doing this because he did do much if not all of what he was accused of doing.” -rightkiwi
“Do you honestly think this guy has been treated unfairly? He has had ample opportunity to deny the allegations.” – rightkiwi
Mate, absence of evidence against the allegation is not enough to secure its truth. This is basic logic mate.
Also: recall our burden of proof principle?
Finally, who’s putting constraints on Mr. Benson-Pope’s abilities to seek legal counsel? You? Your public? The majority?
The Law perhaps, but not yet.
“He has had ample opportunity” – rightkiwi
I am suggesting that you are being unfair, and perhaps ignorant of due process in this case.
A solution?
I have particular end-points in mind, and wouldn’t want to be seen to compromise certain people’s chances by putting a strategy before you.
Go and find out what the word allegation means yourself. I am simply trying to help you.
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Spam:
An allegation. ‘She says …’ ‘and then she says…’
Allegations in perpetuity.
They remain allegations.
That’s all Mr. Hide has.
Allegations …
Unproven claims.
By the way, the phrase ‘prima facie’ means: based on first impressions.
That’s all. ‘prima facie’ carries no real impact. An example:
I can make a prima facie case against spam & rightkiwi that they are both ignorant of the New Zealand Law.
prima facie = first impressions.
first impressions = prima facie
Allegations..
More allegations…
first impressions…
prima facie…
allegations…(boring huh?)
witch-hunt, salem trials, smoldering vendettas…
allegations…
trial by the mob…
trial by the media…
‘I’m a Kiwi – I want my “Women’s Day”!’
Get it?
just allegations. “Women’s Day” material.
Not a winning political strategy.
allegations….snooze….
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 1:06 pm
“He has had ample opportunity to deny the allegations, use the common law to launch a defamation action, use parliament to set the record straight (where he would even be protected by privilege).”
rightkiwi
(a) He did deny the allegations – that was the issue.
(b) He can raise a defamation suit, but he’ll never win, because his accusers are protected by qualified privilege. Even if they are lying (which I am not suggesting).
(c) He tried and was denied leave – by those raising the allegations so they could continue the attack.
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 1:23 pm
James -
Do you actually have a point to make?
You may have convinced yourself that you’ve refuted my point – but you haven’t.
I have said that allegations have been made – you agree that they have been made.
I showed that the allegations have been investigated by the police, who determine that their was sufficient substance to warrant a prima facie case. I would hope that you would agree that an allegation for which the police believe there is sufficient evidence to form a prima facie case is a little better than just ‘he said / she said’.
And then you drivel on about women’s day and still haven’t explained why you think that the allegations are irrelevant.
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 1:50 pm
I think James is making the point that the interest in Benson Pope is reaching Brad Pitt status here. Did he really cheat on Jen with Angie? And what is Victor’s cunning plan in Young and Restless? Did DBP really usher some teenage girls out of a dorm? Why did he not tell the whole truth about it? Why doesn’t Don Brash use Regaine? Or does he? Has Helen Clark considered an extreme makeover, or is she a casualty thereof? What is Elle’s secret workout program? Did Fergie get liposuction?
Which is to say it’s both interesting and boringly trivial at the same time. I can see that in none of the alleged offences of the man does it really have any bearing at all on his ability to function as a Minister, just as Brash carrying on whilst married with another man’s wife doesn’t impact on his ability to be the Prime Minister, if that happened. I really don’t give a shit – it’s his plans for the country I cared about. But this fixation on DBP gives us insight into the level of care in our nation’s wellbeing that our esteemed opposition has. I have utterly refused to comment on it for about a month now but it’s just starting to get ridiculous, when we get 3 posts a day on it, you start to get an opinion by osmosis.
And my opinion is that some teachers were and probably still are wankers, which makes them perfect candidates for politicians. This guy is no more of a wanker than half of Parliament. Unfortunately he had a lot to do with children so this pathetic scuttlebutt is going to drag on until National have finally hammered the point home that they have really, truly got nothing to say, nothing to offer, except negative politics.
Which means that when the inevitable scandals rock them, they will have lost all right to say this way of running a major party is bad for the country. It is a foolish course they have taken, it failed to win them the election, and it will fail again and again. I’m only bitter because it lets Labour get away with a lot. If all they have to do is not have any Woman’s Day scandals, they can run the country however they like.
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 1:57 pm
Ben –
The issue is whether he can be trusted to tell the truth when in parliament. If he can’t then he should not be a minister, let alone an MP.
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 2:15 pm
Spam:
They, all of them, remain allegations. Unproven claims.
Allegations are easy to make. Proving them before our legal system is another matter.
Spam says, ” [ ] is a little bit better than [ ]“. This is not sufficient.
Are they a little better proven than previously?
It’s doesn’t sound logical, does it. The allegations remain unproven, until such time as they are proven. Simple. No grey area. Proven versus unproven. True or False?
Spam says:
“Of course, there is the matter that a complaint was made about DBP by another teacher that resulted in mediation and DBP having to make a written apology. I guess he “doesn’t recall” this either?” – Spam
“I guess he “doesn’t recall” this either?”-Spam
Spam is guessing. Guessing? Why is Spam guessing?
Guessing is not a part of argument.
Therefore: Speculation. Irrelevant.
Most allegations are relevant to someone or other. But all of them are unproven claims.
I am teaching you what an allegation means.
The metaphor of NZ’s “Women’s Day” etc is apt. Both you and rightkiwi appear to prefer discussing unproven claims (allegations). Perhaps I am being a bit tough on you both, as the purview of NZ’s “Women’s Day” etc is gossip, rumour, etc. While you are discussing allegations made, you are not engaging in gossip or rumour I suppose. Or are you?
But you have shown me nothing yet. You have only opined and reported what you’ve heard and/or read.
You certainly haven’t argued convincingly. Not yet.
And these are the same problems Mr. Hide & Mr. Brash & Ms. Collins will soon face – perhaps.
Keep at it…
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 2:44 pm
james, you’re a dweeb. I guess you think that the statement “the moon is made of rock, not cheese” to be a mere allegation. After all, the matter has never been to court and you have never been to the moon (although you aren’t on the planet either).
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 2:55 pm
James –
YOUR points are irrelevant. I am not on trial, and this is not a Court of Law – I am allowed to speculate here. I know what an allegation is, and you patronising me is pretty pointless. Where did I claim that these were anything other than allegations? Where did I claim they were proven? All I posted was that 1.) they had been made, and 2.) they are relevant to the discussion.
The best you could do was say that they aren’t relevant because they haven’t been proven. Well relevance is, well, relative. These allegations are relevant to a DISCUSSION on the likelihood that Benson Pope lied to parliament. Just because the police decided (at the time) that it wasn’t in the public best interest to test them in a court of law does not mean that they did not happen. That the police did not refute them (and I mean properly refute, not just saying “we refute” with no proof), is relevant to the discussion. Not everything has to be tested in a court of law before a consensus can be reached or an opinion can be formed.
Please feel free to continue with your pedantry.
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 2:59 pm
rightkiwi. That’s just rediculous. The problem with the moon is that it is made of hard cheese and very rock-like in its consistency. You know darn well that the experts haven’t been able to agree on this matter. It is either made of cheesy rock, or rocky cheese. No court of law will be able to help out.
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 3:01 pm
No Spam, that is *your* issue. Telling the truth, nothing but the truth, but not the whole truth is pretty much what is expected in Parliament, particularly when faced with hostile questioning about matters relating to previous employment.
I would prefer it if MPs would tell the whole truth, but very few do. If the level of ‘lying’ that is being attributed to DBP is a standard to which all of Parliament must conform, then there will be almost no one in it. And who will be left will be the meekest, did-nothing, never-opened-their-mouths, never-had-an-opinions nobodies. This appears to be the kind of Parliamentarian favoured by the Nats, but they are cretinous if they think their own people fit that mould. They have just been spared from such politicking by a Labour who were determined to win the election, knowing such a strategy is bankrupt and desperate.
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Spam, I’ve just worked it out – James has been right all along. Parliament is our highest court, so presumably an “allegation” passes into being a “fact” when parliament has a vote. So let’s have a vote in Parliament and see whether or not the “allegations” are actually “facts”. Yeah right.
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 3:15 pm
Ben,
I agree. But the argument seems to have now morphed into whether what BP said can be spun into being a partial-truth, or whether it was actually a lie.
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 3:45 pm
It is either made of cheesy rock, or rocky cheese
Post of the month!! Fricking brilliant come back. Laughed till I wept.
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 4:07 pm
It must be made of cheese judging from all the Hollywood movies about it.
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 5:01 pm
ripefruit writes:
“the moon is made of rock, not cheese”.
That’s a statement. Not an allegation.
An allegation is a statement by some party, which they undertake to prove, usually as part of a complaint etc.
Ripefruit is not complaining that his moon is made of rock or cheese. No-one cares…except ripefruit. And cheese everywhere, I suspect.
If you are a conservative, ripefruit, you need a new moniker. We can’t have any ripefruits in our National Party…
good luck…
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 6:39 pm
spam writes:
“Just because the police decided (at the time) that it wasn’t in the public best interest to test them in a court of law does not mean that they did not happen.”
nor that they did happen. (You forgot that bit)
then spam writes:
“That the police did not refute them (and I mean properly refute, not just saying “we refute” with no proof), is relevant to the discussion.”
Wrong again. See, it’s not the role of the NZ Police to refute anything. They may gather ‘evidence’, but they alone cannot refute allegations or prove allegations.
They may produce a report. And it can go no further than that. That was the case with Mr. Benson-Pope. Still unproven claims. Still allegations only. Assertions unproven. Documented by the NZ Police.
Then Spam writes:
‘Not everything has to be tested in a court of law”.
No, tennis balls do not, for example.
But these allegations – by definition – involve a filing of a complaint or other pleading, and start on a process that can see them ‘tested’ further in a civil action etc. (Courts again, see?)
At the beginning of that procedure, the NZ Police investigated the allegations and decided not to proceed further. All very standard. Nothing non-standard at all.
Again, it is not what you or rightkiwi or Mr. Hide or Mr. Brash or Ms. Collins feel,’know’, wish or just plain believe to be true about the allegations that is relevant here. Your opinions are to be respected. But that is not the same thing.
Because, you are not the Law. Nor are you complainant (that we know of).
You are a discussant (and maybe a NZ “Women’s Day” reader too).
Now, I respect the former.
Your choice though may soon be whether to partake of Mr. Brash’s Witch-hunt or not. A moral choice? Tough politics … but then politics is not for the weak.
I am not inferring that you are currently part of the witch-hunt.
Now, try ‘refuting’ that, and politely…
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 7:05 pm
spam & rightkiwi:
If you both are a part of this witch-hunt, you may sink with Mr. Brash as people will remember the NZ National Party people who encouraged this sorry saga. The NZ public won’t let them forget.
3 groups are going to benefit from this Brash -witch-hunt.
The NZ Labour Party, the NZ public & Mr. John Key (and his supporters). No doubt about any of this. Ya live by Mr. Brash, ya die by Mr. Brash.
So, choose: Mr. Brash or …
The guy is a very poor prospect to lead our party to eventual electoral success.
I like winning…what’s wrong with winning?
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 7:59 pm
Nice strawman james.
What do you wish for me to refute? You haven’t actually stated anything worthwhile, rather than indulged in more pedantry.
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 8:20 pm
I am happy to have won this one.
Thanks, mate.
Glad that you can now see it all through the lens of the Law, and not rumour…
I’m done here.
Vote:March 2nd, 2006 at 8:27 pm
no, you just alledge that you’ve won it…
Vote: