This entry was posted on Monday, October 29th, 2007 at 9:27 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
If this was the best she could come up with, it may be time for new spin doctors. However I can see a precedent being set here. If he is demoted and not fired, on of course recommendation of the PM, anyone will now be free to wack their co-workers and take it to court if fired. And the lawyers will now be using the Mallard V Henare case. No real punishment. Demoting him is just a joke as if they win power after the election he will be straight back up again as we would have forgotten all about this.
Anybody seen the movie V for Vendetta? Art imitating life.
A demotion is a ridiculous notion, dressing it up as punishment is bullshit. what will his demotion be? Less work for the same pay and perks.
Schadenfraude is definitely the word of the week around here. He has no sympathy due to him at all, this is simply a case of him getting a dose of his own medicine.
And Helen Clarke missing her live cross over to paul henry on breakfast this morning was a cop out. henry has been vociferous in hiss piss taking of clarke and mallard over the last week and you can bet the technical difficulties were boillocks.
Would Helen Clark have defended Mallard actions if he had hit a woman?
Let’s see how would that sound…
“Trevor was under stress when he punched Katherine Rich on the face and then wrestled with her on the ground.
I think not! The only reason Helen will treat Trevor with kid gloves is she knows if she pushes him too far he may jump off the Titanic that is the Labour Government. And then it will be the Labour Party up the creek without a paddle.
Most people I know are laughing at this incident – mostly I think because Tau just isn’t nicest guy himself. Now if Mallard had hit someone who carries a bit more respect – i.e. a Bill English- then Labour might have something to really worry about. But as it stands I can’t see this denting labour’s public support at all.
It’s a shit for people like you and me who live in the real world, isn’t it? You know, the one where we’re held accountable for our actions without a focus group, and where standard of behaviour apply to evryone not just ‘nice’ people we like.
Ah the sexist little nome is out. So if a women is say not a very nice person it’s okay for her husband to come and bash her?
Or how about your child is stealing from your purse, little thief smash him.
Or Roger the little bastard in the cot is not nice at all and wets himself all the time, crying, let’s smash him or hang him on a washing line.
If your referring to that time I (rightly) called you a “twat” it was being used as a non-gender specific insult. For instance – if I called you “prick” it wouldn’t make me a misandrist – it would just mean that I think you’re quite a petty and nasty person.
“Oh dear, the sky is pink and the moon is made of cheese”
I can see you some some pretty severe delusions about yourself Bok. May I suggest that if in future you don’t want those sorts of insults thrown at you, you should refrain from falsely accusing people of being rapists?
“So its is OK after all.
It is OK to hit people who question the integrity of a woman.
It is OK to hit a Maori MP that isn’t particularly popular.
Thanks Helen -and roger- for the clarification!”
Not really – frankly I think their both macho dickheads, and I would rather that neither of them were any where near power. Still though – the image of those two middle-aged bully boys rolling around on the floors of parliament does have a sadly comic air about it. That’s why I think people are laughing about it.
Now,, why hasn’t the Labour and Greens PC brigade spoken out forcefully about this exhibit of male testestrone, overtly prominent vocal and physical exchange of intellectual ideas that would have school children thinking men are fighting to have a say in the feminist socialism of todays enforced political world.
Now why aren’t the PC brigade speaking out against this stone age phenomenon rearing its ugly free speech unfashionable head??
roger I laughed about it too!
I laughed because it shows what goes around comes around and the thought of the contortions the Labour Parties spin-doctors would have to go to, to justify it, had a almost instantaneous effect on my funny bone.
But face it Trevor will be tarred forever as a hot-headed hypocrite and the longer he stays in cabinet the funnier it will be!
I have consistently said that I am struggling to get to excited about this (and got in trouble with Craig about my uncaring attitude in relation to violence) but now I am annoyed. If Tau had stopped Mallard’s whinging with a quick tap on the jaw Clark would be calling for charges to be brought in the Hague and yet she starts with the mealey mouthed excuses when it is her own. Even worse, she talks about protecting the honour of a woman – this is the same PM who presided over the dirtiest political smear campaign (Brash and the other woman) in Parliament’s history (edging out the “take your pills” campaign against Nick Smith by a whisker). Another outstanding display of hypocracy.
roger nome – Mallard is a serial “baiter” – that he reacted violently when provoked merely demonstrates that he can dish it out, but he can’t take it. Two words come to mind to describe that kind of person – “bully” and “coward”.
Clark can’t have it both ways. She endorsed Mallard and Benson-Pope’s attacks on Don Brash last year – have you forgotten the television images of her and Cullen grinning like Cheshire cats? As GPT1 suggests, it is nothing more than hypocracy on her part, and the “defending a woman” claim is a smokescreen – and a pretty lame one at that.
(and got in trouble with Craig about my uncaring attitude in relation to violence)
There’s only room for one drama queen on this thread, Grant, and I’m it! But it was just such a weirdly retro girly thing for Clark to say in the first place – and at the risk of drawing an over-long bow, there are parts of the world where patriarchs violently ‘defending the honour’ of their women against perceived slights isn’t only patronising, but downright lethal.
Perhaps things have changed dramatically since I left Wellywood, but back in the day the Hutt Valley chicks I knew could clean the clock of any uppity man without any help.
The thing about the Mallard affair is that while it wasn’t premeditated, there was a long time between when the comment was said and when the altercation occured. Mallard, during that time, could have/should have cooled down. So not only did he hit someone, he had time to think about it.
Not that I’m saying he went out into the lobby with the intention of hitting Henare. I’m merely saying that he had plenty of time to cool off and that he showed more signs of being schoolyard bully than a political one
I also think its ironic that the Govt is so anti-domestic violence and yet will defend him. I say let him sink. Clark is being stupid, though its not totally surprising.
So woman need their honour protected with violence. Oh Helen, you have slipped up here…. Take a deep breath and remind yourself that woman can do anything and don’t need a man punching people out for them.
Guess who else is a bitch? Margo Wilson. Here’s from Rodder’s blog:
I had heard you rule at the start of Thursday’s sitting that your jurisdiction didn’t extend to the lobbies. I concluded on the evening of the 25th that there was nothing that I or you could do.
However, the following day TVNZ have alerted me to page 129 of Dave McGee’s Parliamentary Practice:
Indeed, formerly, the Speaker was not regarded as having jurisdiction over what occurred in the lobbies, except during a vote. Now the Speaker’s delegation of authority from the House to control admission runs as equally to the lobbies as to the Chamber and the galleries, so disorder in the lobbies could be dealt with by the Speaker if necessary.
Question: “Now,, why hasn’t the Labour and Greens PC brigade spoken out forcefully about this exhibit of male testestrone, overtly prominent vocal and physical exchange of intellectual ideas that would have school children thinking men are fighting to have a say in the feminist socialism of todays enforced political world.”
Answer: “Because it’s ok when a Labour politician does it…”
Man, the Labour Party were already in the deep end given their hypocricy, at a time when we have a major add campaign against domestic violence. And now i can smash anyone i want if im defending a womans honour, because Politburo member Trevor Mallard did it and Der Fuhrer Helen Clark said it was O.K.
This is only going to make the Government look worse. Clark needs a new Spin Doctor fast, may i suggest Roger Nome?
There’s an unnatural silence from the outspoken Left on this thread/matter.
Don’t tell me I have to got to thestandard.org for laughs. Its so much easier for them to come here and fill our lives with things to snigger at. As Mallard has proven, monkey’s are at their most entertaining when preforming.
I’m waiting for the socialist morons on the 9th floor to call in their old mates the counselling pro’s for old Trev. Clearly the man is in need of some serious anger management counselling, something this lot excel in. His recovery will no doubt be instantaneous.
I believe the NZPA quote was incorrect.
I recall Newstalk ZB quoting her as saying
“He was defending a married woman’s honour.”
Now that is unusual as the clear inference is that a female in a Civil Union has a different sort of honour. The key word in that quote is “married”.
Maybe a “partner” does not need her honour protected in such a violent way.
The Duck would be well advised
not to bash old ”Thunder Thighs’
her reaction would be strong and fast,
She`d sit the Duck down on his arse
he`d scream and swear as his ballbag tore,
a victim of a gold medal oar.
And to further show her displeasure
She`d send his nuts to Tau for extra measure.
NPO: yeah, whatever. I take it you have nothing useful to comment on relating to Mallard / Henare.
National are doing their homework on policy. Maybe it will be good when it comes, maybe not. Getting all conspiracy theory about it is a bit pointless. It actually takes time to create good policy. I guess if you are just following the polls for your policy then it doesn’t take as long.
Natural Party of Govt – The important thing though is, how are you going to keep on for a whole ear without announcing any policy ?
Are you stupid? It would be bad strategic form if National was to release ‘policy’ before the election. Policy discussions maybe, but not hard policy detail. To do so would give Government officials (yes, paid by the taxpayer) the time to read through it and pick it clean – all National’s innovation, fresh ideas, new perspectives etc would be stolen. Kinda like 2005 elections when National came out too early and released tax breaks for students. Labour then followed with interest-free student loans. Yes, I emphasise the “followed” part, as in afterwards, post, later, thereafter…
I’m pretty sure National aren’t just going to give away their policy so you lefties can nick it. Policy will come out in time, but obviously not soon enough for you.
Take Politics101. You really have no understanding of the political process. But then again, I don’t think you want to. Ignorance, after all, is bliss.