Davis staying behind
The Herald reports that Peter Davis is not moving to New York, with Helen Clark due to his work at Auckland University.
In some ways this is not surprising, as he previously worked in Christchurch for many years. Of course New York is a hell of a lot further away, and you won’t be catching up at weekends.
This will of course excite some people greatly, who are convinced that the Clark/Davis marriage is a sham and in reality Davis has shagged random men in dozens of cities around the world, and Clark has slept with half the female Labour MPs and staff. If even 10% of the rumours that circulate about them are true, both Clark and Davis could rival Charlie Sheen for stamina.
This is one of those topics that I hate, and as many people can attest any promoting of said rumours will get instant demerits.
In the past I blogged my disapproval of the HoS asking Peter Davis about his sex life, and also blogged my disapproval of the media stories over Peter Davis on 2005 election night.
As I said some people will see this as proof of various theories. It isn’t. It is merely proof that Peter Davis values his professional career a lot, and doesn’t want to chuck in a good job. Clark I imagine will be travelling a lot, and so even if you lived in New York, you might not see a lot of each other.
At the end of the day, MPs private lives should be private unless there is gross hypocrisy involved.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:33 am
“unless there is gross hypocrisy involved”
Are you seriously suggesting there is not??
[DPF: Yep, even if said rumours are true (and you know after 20 years there has not been a shred of proof). Helen has never campaigned heavily on being married. She admitted in a biography she wasn't into the institution of marriage. She doesn't use Davis in campaign literature, or campaigning at all.]
March 28th, 2009 at 11:39 am
big bruv: He can’t prove that there is not. However if there actually is, it is up to you to prove it. Just because there isn’t any proof of no gross hypocrisy doesn’t mean that there is actually gross hypocrisy.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:59 am
For the record I am not surprised he is not going. Also I consider this announcement is very well timed in that it gets this issue out of the way so that when it becomes official the news focus will be on that and not on speculation over whether he will go or not. Then in a totally disingenuous way you make a whole lot of innuendo under the fig leaf you will not tolerate any in comments. I assume people in the Wellington “know” including you, have their own theories why but then you happily remind us in provincial NZ we are not privy to such stuff.
[DPF: I have made no innuendo. I have merely stated a fact that all sorts of bizarre rumours circulate. The tone of my post makes it pretty clear I do not regard any of them as having substance]
March 28th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
It does seem pretty odd though, and the old adage where there’s smoke there’s fire could well be applied. Also, she won’t be a MP in a short while so the old conventions might not apply.
I have no issue with anyone’s sexuality as long as they are honest about it. I’ve never felt that Helen has been entirely honest – and yes I have no proof, but along with a decent chunk of the population I have an imprecise, unfounded gut feeling about her. And before any of you trample me, it’s not because she wears trousers and talks with a level of bass similar to a Ukranian shot putter – it’s just that gaydar thing.
Contrast her to the ultimate female prime minister Mrs T and you can see the difference. Maggie had a sense of her feminism, witness the ever present handbag, elegant hair, etc. Helen just looks like a dyke in a sack.
Why do I think this might get them going, is it the Mrs T comment or that Helen has the style and presence of a Soviet office block, and a possible unproven preference for drinking from the hairy cup.
March 28th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
So Helen gets 500k income she doesn’t pay any tax on, a 40k ongoing bonus scheme with free airfares and a free car for being an ex prime minister and her and Peter will fly back and forth leaving a massive carbon footprint because it’s convenient for them. Can anybody tell me which one of these is not a gross hypocrisy considering the last nine years of Labour/Green policy?
March 28th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Either way, such a decision by Uncle and Peter has just set the tongues wagging again as it fits in with all those rumours.
But as I note over at the Fairfacts Media Show, Uncle is not answerable to the people of New Zealand anymore, Peter is but a mere academic. They are free or at least freer to live their lives how they see fit, now both are further away from the public spotlight.
March 28th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
“She doesn’t use Davis in campaign literature, or campaigning at all.”
An uncharacteristically wise decision IMHO. Simpering little academic parasite.
March 28th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Well my mileage differs on this.
If said rumours are true, then Clark owed it to the country to be honest, the moment she started aiming for the highest elected position in the land, a position which relies on the electorate being able to place complete trust in the incumbent and demands the highest possible levels of integrity from the incumbent.
If said rumours are true and she took that suggested course of action, then I suspect she would have taken a tremendous political hit possibly ending her chances of becoming PM. However that's the difference between self-interest and self-sacrifice, and the office of PM demands the latter and not the former.
[DPF: There is no proof the rumours are true, and you know I think something would have emerged by now if they were. And also sexuality is not a black vs white. There are many happily married couples where one of the partners may have had same sex experiences in their younger days]
March 28th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Would Peter even be allowed back in the US after the alleged LAX incident?
[DPF: And 20 more demerits]
March 28th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
After all, only room in the bed for two!
March 28th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Where was the hypocrisy that justified Clark through Trev making comments about Brash’s alleged affair as a means of blackmailing Brash into dropping the legitimate corrupt comments in Parliament.
Clark can dish it out but cannot take it. If Labour had not made comments about Brash’s private life the comments about Davis would have remained rumours and not made it to the main stream media
[DPF: I agree Labour was hypocritical with their pushing of the Brash rumours. But I do not think the response is to stoop to their level]
March 28th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Well said Reid. Helen Clark has made it perfectly clear she was never interested in being married, and if civil unions were available to her at the time of her marriage she would have chosen this course of action (but with whom and why?). Why get married if you don’t believe in it – apart from the obvious reason of providing yourself with a veneer of conservatism and social acceptability, both important perceptions to the public when appraising the merits and attributes of a career politician. IMO I doubt if civil unions were available back then it would have provided the level of credibility she would have needed. It is clearly obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that getting married was a sacriface she intended to make for her career. I think this is gross hypocrisy. No one forced her to get married.
March 28th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Let us all suppose, for the sake of argument, that the LAX incident did happen, and it did go down as the rumours say.
Wouldn’t that also provide a very strong incentive for Peter Davis to stay here in NZ?
March 28th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Ooh, it’s going to be just like David Beckham all alone in Milan…are there such things as UN groupies? Ok, I’ll stop now before anyone is ill…
March 28th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Those who subscribe to the ‘No smoke without Fire’ theory will see this as proof positive that this is a sham marriage in the conventional sense.
But to be fair I suspect that HC never looked at her ‘marriage’ in a conventional sense.
What’s changed?
March 28th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
It’s documented her marriage was one of political convenience. She uses people to get what she wants and discards them.
A bit like using NZ taxes to buy her UN job:
http://www.investigatemagazine.com/tgif27march09.pdf
March 28th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
“unless there is gross hypocrisy involved”
ummm what were Helens comments after the Don Brash affair? something about integrity.. could not be trusted..
“Helen has never campaigned heavily on being married”
so what were those godawful interviews that Holmes did every 3 years? 15 mins of prime time coverage talking about how they were in love, the household routines etc.. how peter would make her cups of tea blah blah. put a dollar value on that.
[DPF: I suspected they hated doing those things]
March 28th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
The matter of Dear Leader’s sexual preferences was well known and discussed in Wellington, at all levels of the political spectrum, and, as far as I am aware, was only never bought into the open for two reasons:
The left-leaning MSM (with one notable exception – ‘Investigate’ magazine), were simply too ‘Chicken’ and enarmoured with ‘the cause’ to publish this information.
It was felt by that same media (somewhat hypocritically IMHO) that to investigate such things was ‘simply not done’ and was a rank invasion of one’s privacy – especially when it was the great and wonderful DL’s privacy
A pity really – had the country as a whole known that DL prefered girls to boys she would probably have never come to power, and we could have been spared nine years of destruction of our way of life.
And if Mr Davis isn’t going with her to NY? Not a problem, there are other ‘friends’ who will be quite willing to fill in the gap his absence will cause (as the Dom-Post so wittily pointed out. . .), after all, ‘the sisterhood’ is everywhere.
A closing thought: Has anyone else considered that perhaps, just perhaps, DL was actually acting ‘under orders’ (and still is) – and given thought about from whom said orders may be coming.?
Just something to consider. . . .
March 28th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Dime, you know as well as anyone else does that a politicians domestic life is always geared up to be the most wholesome there is, every polician seems to be married to the Briscoes woman.
I think that Ms Clark was complaining about the fact that Brash used to go about his “Singaporean” wife ad nauseam and he got his just rewards when discovered dipping his wick into an employee.
That reminds me, there is a typical Briscoes woman in Parnell………
March 28th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Gee the dog whistle is well and truly going on this one.
“This is one of those topics that I hate, and as many people can attest any promoting of said rumours will get instant demerits.”
Then why post the story at all DPF?
I cannot imagine a topic of less importance than this one. The Herald/DPF publication is obviously designed to excite those who are convinced that Clark and Davis both have some sort of dark secret. I cannot imagine anything less likely and even if it was true my only response would be “so what”?
There are many, many more important things to consider than Helen’s sex life. How about climate change, the crisis in capitalism, or the fact that our current leadership collectively has its head placed where it’s ability to see anything apart from its shoelaces is seriously hindered?
[When a story is on the front page of the Herald, it is hard to ignore. If I had not posted the story, it would have been debated at length in general debate. I made a deliberate decision to try and point out why there is nothing outrageous in this decision, to try and calm the debate down. But I still get smeared by you for doing so. Sad]
March 28th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
From stuff (Oct 2006)
Perhaps someone could remind Helen that ‘mainstream’ marriage involves actually living together and sharing in each others’ lives. Years of living in different cities makes any marriage a complete sham. And now they’ll be living in different countries. Come on! Why is she so afraid of the truth being known?
March 28th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
micky
“I cannot imagine a topic of less importance than this one”
It’s all about trust if you remember correctly.
March 28th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
“15 mins of prime time coverage talking about how they were in love, the household routines etc.. how peter would make her cups of tea blah blah.”
..and the note on the fridge demonstrating their separate financial status
March 28th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Mickey Savage at 1.40pm: “There are many, many more important things to consider than Helen’s sex life.”
What hypocritical crap from the Left. Helen led the destruction of Don Brash over an alleged heterosexual affair. I don’t believe that has ever been proved. That didn’t stop the despicable smear campaign enthusiastically transmitted by the MSM. They have notably laid off Clark on similar rumours.
After what the Left (plus perhaps one traitor within National) did to Don Brash Clark deserves to have her private life bared to the world.
DPF is obviously entitled to his view that others shouldn’t stoop to Labour’s level. But this is a case of exposing Left hypocrisy rather than seeking revenge for the political destruction of a man with more economic nous than any present MP.
Clark certainly has the deceitfulness and cunning that would allow her to lead a secret life. Whether she did or does I know not and care not. However, I despise that deceit and cunning, plus the maliciousness she showed towards heterosexual Brash. You also have to wonder whether Labour and the MSM would have pursued Brash if the rumours and innuendo and hints had been that Brash was having a homosexual affair?
March 28th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
mickysavage
You are missing the point, either deliberately or not. Throwing up red herrings only fools a few people. No one gives a rats arse about what Helen Clark does in the privacy of her bedroom or with whom. The point is that as the holder of the highest public office in the land or the second if you want to count the GG, she has (had) a duty of care to be scrupulously honest in her dealings with the public. In this case, if the accusation was true about the alleged LAX incident, there are questions that can and should be raised about subsequent actions she took, or more correctly didn’t take, with her Minister of Foreign Affairs and the consequences of those actions. Why in the face of such overwhelming evidence at the Glen/Peters committee hearing, did she still not take the appropriate action and remove him. Why did she still have confidence in him? Other Ministers on her watch had been removed for less or equal transgressions. One can only assume that her Minister had information she was not prepared for him to make public.
We are not talking about salacious gossip here. This goes to the heart of running a government for the good of the country not to cover one’s own backside because a scandal would ruin any chance of a future international position.
March 28th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Jack5
Brash’s career was destroyed from within, not because of an affair but because he misled the public and got caught out. And he was shown to be a Hollow Man.
Helen had nothing to do with the book or Brash’s demise. You should ask Nicky Hagar if he was doing Helen’s dirty work but I would suggest that you stand well back from him when you do this to avoid injury.
“But this is a case of exposing Left hypocrisy …”
It seems to me to be a chance to rehash a whole lot of myths such as the LAX myth.
We should talk about something really significant, like how Paul Henry should be sacked for some of his latest offensive behaviour.
March 28th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Well Mr Bill CLINTON as we all know “‘Did not have sex with that woman”. Neither of our former first couple has given a similar re-assurance….On the other hand similar rumours swirled about Oscar WILDE a talented wordsmith, they weren’t denied but nobody believed them. Perhaps history will reveal the truth.
March 28th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Micky Savage at 2.17 “We should talk about something really significant…”
When a lefty like Savage says this, you know the debate is on target, and the target is Helen Clark.
Micky adds: “…You should ask Nicky Hagar if he was doing Helen’s dirty work but I would suggest that you stand well back from him when you do this to avoid injury.”
Are you suggesting Hagar is a brawler as well as a left-wing hack? He doesn’t look as though he packs a punch. More like a bloody leprechaun.
Remember Micky that Clark and Mallard in Labour were those who especially enjoyed the destruction of Brash.
What goes around comes around Micky.
March 28th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Explains all the references to Miss Helen Clark in relation to her landing the job.
March 28th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
[DPF: I suspected they hated doing those things]
so she gets a pass? not in my eyes.
i think bruv is right. sometimes you are too close to it all. it not a game. its also into a trade off – “we wont out an opposition MP cause they might out us”.
i generally dont care about a politicians personal life, unless they are breaking the law.. but i think Helens case meets your “gross hypocrisy” criteria.
March 28th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
micky
“not because of an affair but because he misled the public”
You fail to see a connection here micky?
March 28th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Sarkozygroupie
Bloody good points, of course the UN are not in the slightest bit interested in the truth of the matter, more than likely they know full well what happened at LAX. What is important to that corrupt organisation and is that its corrupt appointee must be “SEEN” to be above suspicion.
One day we will learn the full story, many of us can piece it all together but it would be nice to have the truth confirmed.
One thing is for sure, when that story is told the names of Davis, Clark, Simpson and Peters will feature heavily, then we will all know how this evil and corrupt wimin sold our country down the river for her own personal gain.
March 28th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
What can one say. At least my life isn’t one long lie.
March 28th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Did Helen buy her job with our Money?
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/
March 28th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
HMMMMMM!
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_vC43AIa-0YU/Sc1PffZ6TUI/AAAAAAAAGxo/Ub4pu50Ob8Q/s1600-h/56091564.jpg
Its All About TRUST!!??
March 28th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Even BB is now saying that DPF has left the VRWC and joined the mediocre club of the privileged.
http://barnsleybill.blogspot.com/2009/03/friday-karaoke-prokofiev.html
March 28th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Looks that way. Disgraceful abuse of power. As usual.
March 28th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
As a card carrying homo there is one thing I am 100% sure of – Neither of them are in the slightest bit gay.
Of course the mouth-breathers and tin-foil hat wearers who make up most of the commentators here won’t believe me – but then, really, who cares?
The dogs bark, the caravan moves on.
March 28th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
lol Well said, Mike S
XChequer
http://www.thenzhomeoffice.blogspot.com/
March 28th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
“Did Helen buy her job with our Money?”
Certainly looks like it. Once again the mainstream media are exposed as useless lazy incompetent socialist loving arseholes.
This should have been headline news in every media outlet in the country.
..and where the fuck are the Nats? Too busy kissing Klark’s arse and wishing her well as usual to look into what she’s really up to.
The woman is in my humble opinion the biggest fraud and power obsessed crook to ever disgrace NZ’s parliament, and it is incredible that she has been permitted to act with complete impunity by a gutless poisonous partisan media and a politically neutered cross eyed weak kneed slobbering and transfixed opposition. (now the gummint)
Go Whale Oil, Ian Wishart and Investigate and the blogosphere..!!!!!
March 28th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
I think that Herr Helen would choose power and piles of money over Peter Davis any day.
It’s going to be a tough job for Helen: part of the UNDP mandate is promoting democratic governance and she doesn’t have the first clue about that.
http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2009/02/08/nz-govt-supports-helen-clark-for-united-nations-role/
March 28th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
“Neither of them are in the slightest bit gay.”
What are you talking about? I’ve seen them looking pretty happy and carefree on lots of occasions.
March 28th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Re Mike S at 4.45…
Can anyone explain the following terms Mike S uses please?
“… mouth-breathers and tin-foil hat wearers…”
Also Mike S, if as a self-proclaimed “card carrying homo” you have omniscient knowledge of who is and who isn’t homosexual, can “card carrying heterosexuals” have omniscient knowledge of who is and who isn’t heterosexual? If so, what if two people, one of these types, in assessing a third person can’t agree?
Not that this is central to this string. The debate about Helen centres on her honesty, trustworthiness, transparency and general character. Or on lack of any or all of these.
March 28th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Mike S – just cause you’re gay, doesn’t make you the authority on the matter. i have a couple of gay friends.. they disagree with you. maybe they go to different parties?
March 28th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Homos carry card????? – jeez thanks for that Mike S. Time to search all of my staff – and weed them out
March 28th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
“..The woman is in my humble opinion ..”
‘in your humble opinion’..?
getouttahere..!
..you are one of the most demented of the raving right loonies..!
..you’ve never been ‘humble’ in yr feckin’ life..
..you are just this gibbering/drooling ranter..
..who has been saying exactly the same thing..over and over..
..like a broken record..
..for it seems like…forever..
..you never produce any facts to back yr rants..
..and you just usually pluck it out of the orifice closest to the back of yr knees..
..eh..?
..you are a one-trick-pony..
..and as boring as fuck..
blah..blah..commie..blah..blah..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 28th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
mickysavage said “We should talk about something really significant, like how Paul Henry should be sacked for some of his latest offensive behaviour.”
You’re the one that’s gone off-topic micky, but it is a bit odd when an EPMU official is calling for a worker to be sacked isn’t it.
March 28th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
…….and now we hear that Judith Tizard is not available for a return to parliament……….
March 28th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
It would be good if Peter Davis openly tripped back and forth to and from the USA for a bit, to at least partly give the lie to those dreadful rumours, eh? Especially if he did it to pay a visit or two to his wife, and to see her new digs and get introduced to her new friends and so on……..
March 28th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
I am in a position to disclose what happened at LAX and I am sure that everyone will be extremely interested in this.
What happened was …
Peter Davis caught a plane and did nothing untoward.
March 28th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Bruv, thanks, I think it could be a long time coming before someone is brave enough to poke their head above the parapet to bring us the truth on the particular matter. I sincerely hope now that our very own iron curtain has been lifted metaphorically and people start to become less fearful of having an opinion that disagrees with the Left/socialism/green mantra/Labour ideology, we will start to have a much healthier and democratic society. This didn’t just happen in the last nine years. It was well entrenched when I was finishing varsity in ’96. People on the Left who were in charge of the university newspaper were actually reporting on private conversations taking place in the cafetaria that disagreed with leftist thinking, and hanging those people out to dry.
On that note, I must say the new bread ad on general telly channels – can’t recall the brand off hand – taking the piss out of the PC world/speak we’ve all come to know and fear, is a bloody good laugh! People finally feel able to speak their minds again and this ad correctlly picks up on that. Has anyone else seen it?
Apologies for going off-topic a bit.
March 28th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
mickysavage
Are you saying you were travelling as an official member of Davis’ entourage?
March 28th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
and what position was mickysavage in at LAX?
March 28th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
A fairly good way to preclude comments speculating on people’s sex lives is not to post about people’s sex lives in the first place.
March 28th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Herr Helen has been sending her fake photos to the UNDP.
See that and a leaked copy of what will be her first press release as head of the UNDP at
http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2009/03/28/helen-clark-gets-un-job/
March 28th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
See what Helen herself has to say about her appointment
http://www.youtube.com/user/eastwoodvincent
March 28th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Unless there is proof of the LAX or other similar incidents, then there is little to be gained from the Clark-Davis sex life. It would seem they have lived independent lives for years. If it works for them, then who are we to interfare.
The Poodle used to say that he had mud on everyone in Parliament. Some of it damning. You would have thought that as a last hurrah he would have let it all out. In reality quite the opposite has occurred. It is like he has had his medicinal compound. Now he is neither seen nor heard
March 28th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
The apologists for Klark never cease to amaze me.
They demand that we treat her with courtesy, respect and honour while quickly forgetting that she never accorded any of these things to her opponents or indeed the people of NZ.
She is a nasty piece of work who has never had a real job in her life, she will do anything, say anything or walk over anybody to achieve HER aims in life, Klark deserves nothing but abuse and ridicule from the people of this country, the same people she stole from for the last nine years.
Once she leaves NZ I hope she never returns.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Jack5 March 28th, 2009 at 5:09 pm asks for someone to explain what MikeS means when he said at 4.45
“… mouth-breathers and tin-foil hat wearers…”
1) Mouth breather – a term used to describe numb nutted halfwits too stupid to close their mouth while breathing thereby ‘mouthbreathing’ and sucking in flies etc. Normally associated with hillbillies and those of intellect rated on the left hand side of the normal curve. I must confess MikeS has a point with some of the halfwitted rantings here (and not just mickeysavage et al who are simply unable to get any work done at the EPMU or CTU offices due to answering DPF’s dog whistles on such topics. The union members arent getting very good value for money out of theose reps are they?).
2) Tinfoil hat (wearer) – an item of clothing reported to stop ‘their’ mind control rays therefore a wearer of said item is worried about ‘them’ controlling their mind (a stretch of the imagination given the state of most belivers ‘minds’).
HTH’s
BTW HEC and PD could dress up in nurses uniforms and spank efigees of Winston while doing it and so what?
March 28th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Na, Mickeysavage is also a card carrier and he knows very well what happened there
March 28th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
David, I am disappointed that you blogged on this – you must have known it would attract the least attractive of your commenters who would all froth at the mouth. Peter (an old friend) has every professional reason to stay here while his wife goes overseas to a great job. They are a devoted couple but are used to this degree of separation so while it will be difficult for them it will be manageable. Let them sort it out without the unkindness of strangers shouting from the sidelines.
[DPF: Stephen I reject your suggestion entirely that I should censor the news based on possible reaction from some commenters. The Herald had this as a major story. Plus if I did not blog on it here (and I did everything I could to say I thought all this stuff was crap), then it would be debated in general debate]
March 28th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Thank you expat for your explanation of “mouth breathers and tin-foil hat wearers” in your 10.54pm.
So this is just ad hominem hot air, as is your labelling of some posts “half witted rantings”.
As for your “EC and PD could dress up in nurses uniforms and spank efigees of Winston while doing it so what”: agreed it is their own business. But you expose yourself and your family to the limelight when you stand for Parliament. And if you as a politician loudly deny that you are into even paper mache sado-masochism and threesomes with effigies, or condone associates making the denials for you, then you had better be telling the truth, because veracity rather than privacy becomes the issue.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:12 am
Stephen Stratford, You say we “froth at the mouth” because DFP posted this?…..gosh, I feel your anguish – have yourself a pity party.
What would you have done if another bloke had walked up you and passionately kissed you on the mouth at some public occasion? – how would you have reacted? would you have pushed him away? would you have had him arrested or maybe smack him in the mouth? – (if a bloke did that to a woman without her consent he’d be arrested in this country)
Peter Davis reaction was more to look around and give a …….”not in front of my wife” reaction
and I may say that moment, with Dr Ian Scott was reported around the world ………. and what did that say to the world about NZ ?
I dont really care how you feel for Peter Davis’s feelings – or his relationship. As far as I’m concerned the man embarrassed himself as a man, and embarrassed NZ that night
What is most peculiar is nearly all MSM references and photos of that night appear to have been deleted – which speaks volumes for the control his “other half” exercised
buy yourself some snowtex
March 29th, 2009 at 4:24 am
Hey, thats all right jack5! My pleasure!
BTW, did you know your opining has a smug & ‘I’m slightly superior’ air about it?
HTH’s.
March 29th, 2009 at 6:17 am
Crikey!
The Labour party sounds like an organisation thats not afraid to “put the carkeys in the fruitbowl”!
March 29th, 2009 at 6:49 am
Why didn’t National openly campaign before the election on the fact that it intended to rehabilitate Helen Clark at the earliest opportunity it could get. It would have lost them more than a few votes if it they had.
That’s the type of hidden agenda New Zealand doesn’t need.
March 29th, 2009 at 7:21 am
Thanks to k in a for the most rational balanced and informative post here.
Sexuality isn’t the issue here.
Honesty and integrity are.
The last nine years put paid to those principles.
March 29th, 2009 at 7:39 am
stange couple ????? the nee clark/davis.Most married couples wouldnt say see you when, should this friendship end as its fruitliss, and FAULSE, friends they may be but partners???????? i couldnt live without my wife but davis dosnt???
March 29th, 2009 at 8:01 am
Darn what scares me if helen sleeped around to move up the power ladder(some posts here with no demerites YET) , the rest of the women available to bonk must have been really ugly or those sleeping around had little taste, there are standards to be meet, god you just dont sleep with anything even if she has a sharp brain.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
What an etcentic post, I’ll just put this up here adding evidence to the contention of the mairrage if convienience argument then threaten to give demits to people who discuss it.
I’m satisfied from with the validity of the information that I have and I would have been shocked if Davis had gone with her.
March 29th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Expat at 4.25am and 6.17 seems to be trying to divert posters from the central point in this string — Helen Clark. The times of the postings suggest a night worker, perhaps on some taxpayer-funded job.
The toughest thing to swallow about all this is how the Left and their despicable world dictator mates, aided by John Key, have promoted Helen Clark — the kettle — to socialist glory while the same Left crucified Don Brash — the black pot. Clark goes to a world taxpayer funded sinecure and high life in Manhattan while poor Don Brash got a ticket back to the kiwifruit orchard and a life of snipping vines.
March 29th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Christopher
Would Peter even be allowed back in the US after the alleged LAX incident?
Let us all suppose, for the sake of argument, that the LAX incident did happen, and it did go down as the rumours say.
Wouldn’t that also provide a very strong incentive for Peter Davis to stay here in NZ?
Suppose the John Key – West coast pub rumors are true, that would provide a pretty strong incentive to take off out of the country to Hawaii or something
March 29th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
LOL.
It really is tinfoil hat and mouthbreather territory on this thread.
It was Dr Davis in the Pantry with the meat cleaver while John Key ate coal miners babies and Racer ran away with Helen to a Mid town love nest over looking Central Park.
March 29th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
David, you’re a host for the ugliest, foulest rumours against Helen Clark.
You’ve said “no innuendo”, but the majority of comments here are positively smeared in it. And the circlejerkers give each other karma for saying the most inflamatory things. You don’t delete comments. You leave them up in their full glory.
You know what you’re doing, Mr Farrar.
March 29th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Every time I want to say how David Farrar is active host to the worst kind of people. I’ll point them to this post.
March 29th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
expat
It was Dr Davis in the Pantry with the meat cleaver while John Key ate coal miners babies and Racer ran away with Helen to a Mid town love nest over looking Central Park.
Wohoo, now where is my passport?
March 29th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Georgedarroch: why don’t you leave the Kiwiblog host out of this. From my reading he’s has explained this string is here to keep the debate out of General Discussion.
You are trying to shut down a democratic debate. Put your points up so posters we can joust with you. Or even be like Expat who has finally woken up and is galloping about shouting and tossing in blog-ese abbreviations and insults as he tries in vain to draw posters away from Clark.
Also Georgedarroch, can you please give your position on the “foulest rumours” that brought down Don Brash? Did you make attempts to shut down any discussion of these at the time?
March 29th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
“You know what you’re doing, Mr Farrar.”
Of course DPF knows excatly what he’s doing. We’re all active mebers of the VWRC fighting against your socialist icons.
If you don’t like it here, who is forcing you to visit this blog and read the comments? Piss off to the dreadful Standard.
March 29th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Indeed Jack5, the left can drag Don Brash through the marriage muck pond but Peter and Helen are a no go zone. Who said lies can’t run forever because they got short legs was a bloody liar.
March 29th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Brash was running on a platform of family values at the time, but we have all been over this 100 times before, so I doubt you’ll ever stop claiming it as justification.
[DPF: No he wasn't. In fact he admitted he started a reltionship with his second wife while married to his first wife]