Councillor complains about Kiwiblog
October 7th, 2010 at 10:52 pm by David FarrarOn Monday 20 September I blogged my views on the Wellington City Council elections.
Around 12 days later on 1 October, Eastern Ward Councillr Rob Goulden sent the following complaint to the WCC Returning Officer:
This email is in relation to information I sent to the Electoral Officer as a candidate profile.
My profile was sent for WCC to circulate on its website to the media, as general information as to who was standing, and for publication in the Candidates handbook.
I did not and have not given permission for my information to be published on the Kiwiblog website.
I am also required by the Electoral Act to authorise such publication. I have given no such authorisation to the Mr David Farrar the author and owner of the Kiwiblog website.
I believe his publication under the banner of Local Government Election 2010 on his website is a breach of the act. He tells people how to vote in numerical order, and whom they should vote for.
I do not see this as any different from circulating a leaflet doing the same thing, which was the subject of a recent complaint in Tawa.
I wish information about me to be removed from his website.
Can you please consider this matter as a formal complaint?
The first I knew of this complaint was today.
I should point out at this stage that in my blog post, I did not actually advocate a vote for or against Rob Goulden. I did endorse Simon “Swampy” Marsh and Amanda Nicolle for two of the three spots and said:
The three current Councillors are all quite well known. I’d keep at least one of them on – so people should also support their preferred incumbent.
Ironically several people wanted me to explicitly state that Rob should be ranked in an unwinnable spot. But because of some shared history I declined to do so, and did not state any preferences amongst the three incumbent Councillors. I won’t be as generous in future.
I also provided links to the official candidate supplied statements on the WCC site, allowing readers to make up their own minds on who to support.
Anyway back to the complaint, the Returning Officer responded the same day:
I acknowledge receipt of your complaint and, as required by section 138 of the Local Electoral Act 2001, your complaint will be referred to the Police for their investigation and appropriate action.
Oh what fun. I’ve been under Police investigation without knowing about it. The Police responded quickly:
Police response on Kiwiblog complaint
The Police very sensibly can tell the difference between an advertisement and a hyperlink.
Anyway I found out about all this today when Rob e-mailed me and said:
Please see the attached. I hope you will comply forthwith and remove my information from your website.
Now I am under no legal obligation to remove the link – it is to a public elections site. And I am bemused why Rob didn’t just e-mail me directly in the first place. But just so Rob doesn’t lose any more sleep about this, I have removed the hyperlink.
But perhaps I should replace that hyperlink, with another one. This hyperlink is to the WCC Watch Blog, specifically (by coincidence) to a blog post they did today on Cr Goulden.
UPDATE: A further e-mail from Cr Goulden:
I sent you an email tonight with the Police and Electoral Officers response attached.
I made a complaint to the Electoral Officer because that is the process I am required to follow.
You published my material without permission, which is why you have been asked to remove it.
For the record in 2007, you also published on your website defamatory material about me. You were told to remove and you subsequently did.
I note already a defamatory remark made in response to your latest post.
I am not going to be as lenient as I was last time and intend to do something about you and your posts.
I will give you until the morning to remove them and no longer.
I have responded:
I am disappointed you have not learnt anything from this. Polite requests go down better than threats and complaints.
You have not specified which of the comments you feel is defamatory. If you do so, I will consider your request.
I will continue to blog updates.
Related posts:
- Mayor complains to Police over election statement
- A troll complains
- Police National HQ and the Brash E-mails
- Brash complains to Police over Electoral Act investigation
October 7th, 2010 at 10:59 pm
Desperate folk do do desperate things!!
He sounds like just the sort on person that I would never vote for, and indeed someone that I would suggest as a poor choice amongst the many.
Karma will surely operate, and it will be fun to see if he has lost his JOB.
Bye!!
Vote:October 7th, 2010 at 11:05 pm
Ha… all the subtlety of Mr ____’s vote rigging attempts in Auckland.
Perhaps after the election Mr Gouden will also be singing for his supper.
Vote:October 7th, 2010 at 11:17 pm
Just maybe, with all this individuals attempts to hoodwink voters someone will report the culprit to the returning officer and invke a Police Inquiry. I truly hope that this person gets the full measure of the law. He is a Cunning Stunt.
Vote:October 7th, 2010 at 11:26 pm
When Dave Thornton joined the police force, I bet he never guessed he’s spend part of his career chasing up hyperlinks on blogs that offended a thin-skinned councillor.
If I were Goulden, I’d contact him with an apology for wasting his time.
Vote:October 7th, 2010 at 11:37 pm
Goulden has form – as anyone who reads the local papers in Wellington will know. I was asking my friends wife (who works at the council) about various candidates and she described Goulden as a “[deleted by DPF]“. You may well think that, but I couldn’t possibly comment.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 12:43 am
In all seriousness how do people develop into such cry-baby a*seholes? Maybe the water supply system does require further investment.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 1:04 am
V – you better watch out. Goulden thinks your comment is defamatory. You probably shouldn’t have called him a cry-baby a*sehole. While you might have a defence for cry-baby, you can’t really prove he’s an a*sehole.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 1:04 am
Or is that the other way round? No – I’m pretty sure you can’t claim he’s actually a rectum.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 1:20 am
Rob Goulden is a nasty piece of work. He failed to win the National Party selection for a seat years ago and immediately went toxic on the Nats. He came sixth in the mayoral election last time. He seems to be the Wellington version of Andrew Williams.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 4:41 am
Tim Ellis said
Now THAT is defamation
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 6:43 am
Another “truth with limits” local body politician?
BTW, there’s something… Carter-esque about his tone.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 7:28 am
Goulden is an accomplished moron and deserves every calamity that comes his way. Out with the useless!
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 7:44 am
I am not sure which is worse … to have to make a choice from various blocks of bland and flavourless electoral tofu (as I perceive the elections in Lower Hutt), or to have to choose from a variety of colourful but rancid time-expired exotic flavours as might be the case in the capital.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 7:48 am
Yeah, he looks like the Wellington version of Andrew Williams allright.
if Williams is the clown of Campbells Bay, does this make Goulden the Maniac or Moron of Miramar?
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 8:14 am
… or the Wayne Kerr of Wellington
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 8:24 am
HEY! Thats Counciller Wayne Kerr thank you.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 8:32 am
True enough. And stupid, desperate folks will lay complaints about, and send nasty emails to the owner of one of NZ’s most widely read blogs.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 8:36 am
All I know is he voted for a full city drinks ban because NZpolice can’t deal with the drunks and vagrants in Newtown, the very same vagrants which the WCC moved on from in the city and wanted to foist on Island Bay in a wet hostel.
Nope Rob wanted to stop us having a beer with our fish and chips at the beach because NZPolice can’t do their job in another suburb, None of those who voted for that got my vote.
Vote:Plonkers.
October 8th, 2010 at 8:45 am
Is this guy the long lost twin of Andrew Williams?
Same bullying tactics; same obnoxious attitude.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 8:48 am
Cept Goulden is ex army and ex police so hes somewhat more dangerous.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 9:01 am
This guy appears to be exactly the type of guy who needs to be kept away from power. Any sort.
You really do need to question the intelligence and suitability of a candidate who lays an official complaint to police about someone linking through to their official online election profile.
I mean seriously. WTF?
Even Williams is not THAT bizarre.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 9:10 am
“You published my material without permission, which is why you have been asked to remove it”
Vote:I wonder why he thinks you need his permission to republish it? He put it in the public arena, and the genie is well and truly out of the bottle. The more he says, the more people learn about him. You would think he would learn that silence is golden
October 8th, 2010 at 9:22 am
is this the dude?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/national/2584847/The-trouble-with-Rob-Goulden
if it is, he really does sound like an a$$
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 9:26 am
What a pillock.
[reads link above]
Sounds like a guy with serious issues, who’s presence on the council just wastes everyone’s time. Seriously, why is he even considering standing again?
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 9:40 am
No, no. She didn’t say “deleted by DPF“, she described him as a ……….. never mind.
Thanks for the “The many faces of Goulden” link, DPF. Very funny.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 9:47 am
David
You should restore the original hyperlink. What a prat. Love to see a threat of a defamation lawsuit. If he does then yawn and say you’re underwhelmed. 90% likelihood its all a threat designed to get you to do what he wants (ie not publish damaging material about how he was a sockpuppet on WCC Watchblog) and even if he served you with papers, the libel threshhold is way too high for anything you have done to come remotely close to defamation.
Stand firm against this dysfunctional bully.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 9:52 am
What a muppet.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 10:10 am
If John Morrison said “He is unfit for public office.” then that’s good enough for me. Can someone send me down and electoral pack (I’m in Christchurch) and I will not vote for him.
“What, it’s illegal to vote where you don’t live” I hear you say? No worry, Labour will retrospective legislate it as OK so they can keep one of theirs out of gaol.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Rob Goulden should look at the Lange v Atkinson court decision if he is thinking to sue anyone for defamation.
In any case Rob has not done himself any favour by not contacting DPF directly. As DPF heard for the first time today, nothing he could do would save the day for Rob, virtually all votes are in the post by now.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
An ex-cop? So that’s why the name rings a bell!
The article linked to by Andrew above describes him as “aggressive, bullying and intimidating” but also a resentful chicken when it comes to having his actions brought to account (in the interview and now, we see, on a blog).
He’d have fitted perfectly into the constabulary then.
Vote:October 8th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
pistolswet hankies at dawn, gents?Tickets through Ticketmaster?
Vote:October 9th, 2010 at 2:49 am
Love the way the Police always put a person’s name in CAPITALS. Does make you wonder about their ability to read lower case…
Vote:October 11th, 2010 at 11:21 pm
“I will continue to blog updates.”
All I can say is that the unfolding drama is better than anything I could ever hoped for from a routine blog-perusal- keep ‘em coming.
Vote: