Hughes relieved of portfolios
March 24th, 2011 at 2:40 pm by David FarrarThe Herald reports:
Labour leader Phil Goff has announced that his MP Darren Hughes has been stood down from his portfolios while a police investigation into him is completed.
Mr Goff said Mr Hughes would remain in Parliament but he now expected the police inquiry to take longer than initially expected.
Mr Hughes’ jobs as education spokesman and senior whip will go to David Shearer and Steve Chadwick respectively.
This doesn’t mean Darren is finished as an MP. I don’t think enough information is available to jump to conclusions.
However losing these two roles was pretty inevitable. The senior whip is the maintainer of discipline in the caucus, and enough infomation has come out that would have made it very difficult to remain whip credibly.
The same goes for Education. This might be seen as unfair, but there is just no way you can go into an election with your proposed education minister being someone who picks up 18 year old first year students in bars (regardless of the issue of consent).
As I said, I don’t think one can conclude at this point about the wider career. I actually still have money in iPredict against Judith Tizard returning as an MP.
Of course it is possible that Hughes will resign, yet Tizard will not return as an MP. How? Two main possibilities.
- The House can resolve by 75% majority not to fill the vacancy, if it occurs within six months of the election – so after 26 May. You have to wonder though why National would decide to vote to keep Tizard from returning, and also is Labour really prepared to have one less MP in the House, than have Judith return?
- Judith could refuse to take up her seat.
The problem with no (2) is the next in lines. Tizard is ranked No 38. Next at 39 is Mark Burton, 40 is Mahara Okeroa, 41 is Martin Gallagher and 42 Dave Heroera. At 43 you have Louisa Wall who has been selected as candidate for Manurea so is going to become an MP anyway. But to get Louisa in, you’d need to convince five seperate former Labour MPs to turn down six months salary and perks.
March 24th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Nine months. If they make it to the election, they keep getting paid for a further three months
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Martin Kay et al are reporting this:
The development was just announced by Labour leader Phil Goff, who said he had asked Hughes to stand down from the key roles after details of the allegations, which concern an early morning incident in Wellington, were made public.
But the story does not say what the “details of the allegations” are and I can’t find them anywhere, not even on the usual suspects’ sites.
Has anyone actually published them?
Yes, I do enjoy a bit of gossip at times.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
Speaking of being stood down – I loved this quote from stuff.co.nz
http://i54.tinypic.com/id6tk6.jpg
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Are you sure they actually met at the bar, or that the term picked up is appropriate?
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 2:57 pm
SPC But would you like him visiting your boy’s school?
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Labour could… and is about to… do a hell of a lot worse than Martin Gallagher.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 3:04 pm
I look forward to the witty, incisive, and solemn comments on the fate of Ginga Hughes from that Labour Party insider, the inimitable MyNameIsRedJack
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
What amazing, in depth coverage of this issue on The Standard!
A tiny post with comments off, covered up by as much generic anti-National fluff as is to hand.
*hands in ears *eyes closed LALALALALALALALA I can’t hear you! Nothing’s happening here! Next news story please!
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 3:07 pm
Dear old Phil. He never lets us down.
Vote:He announced that he had relieved Dodgy Darren of his duties by saying, “I have made a decision”.
Whoopdedo. Do you think this happens often?
March 24th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
Bea, your presumption is obvious but may be misguided as to fact, and it certainly involves being prejudicial as to some danger to others arising from sexual identity.
Look at it another way, if MP’s were to be excluded for social activities with people 14 years younger than themselves what would that make of some of their marriages?
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
Ah, Labour- a sad little sideshow providing fodder for the Sunday star times tripe. Certainly not a govt in waiting. More like a never ending car crash.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 3:23 pm
A day ago Goff was saying that he would apply the same standards he demanded of Key. Today he is, without apology, retracting from that position. Do as I say not as I do….
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
SPC I couldn’t care less what people do or with whom (unless it is irresistibly entertaining like Dodgy Darren) but he is Labour’s spokeperson on education, he has had a complaint laid against him by a teenage boy fresh out of school whom he took boozing round several bars and then home with him in the wee small hours and he is, as part of his job, visiting universities and schools.
Vote:I would feel as uneasy about a known philanderer visiting schools where there are impressionable teenage girls.
Private lives fine but don’t mix up your urges with your public duties. We don’t pay these repulsive characters to use the opportunities of the job to go on the prowl.
March 24th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
It is a minor point but I was reminded of it by your last sentence about giving up perks.
Vote:Doesn’t an MP have to do a full three terms to get the full superannuation perks?
If Darren got elected in 2002 it would mean that he has to complete this term in order to get all the goodies of the Parliamentary super, rather than just get his own contributions back.
If that is the case, and I am open to correction, I would expect him to fight like hell to stay there at least until the election. I can’t see him adjusting easily to having to go cold-turkey with regard to his lifetime troughing habits.
March 24th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
You should hear what Matthew Hooten just said on RadioLive. I have not a recording but it goes along the lines. The 18 year old was or is heterosexual, he was naive and had not heard the rumours about Hughes and thought he was going the Hughes’ place for another drink. Apparently, his parents and girlfriend are highly pissed off. It keeps looking worse for Labour not just Hughes.
This is Karma for what Labour did to Brash. They undermined his career and marriage.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
I would feel as uneasy about a known philanderer visiting schools where there are impressionable teenage girls.
Aussie Rules footballers anyone? Their antics have to be seen to be believed.
Peter Costello (former Oz Treasurer, now Age columnist) warns mothers to watch their daughters when football “role models” come to school here. A sample:
Footballers are not chosen for their moral principles. They do not go into a national draft for budding philanthropists. They can run and catch and kick a ball. What are the clubs thinking when they send them to schools to give guidance on life skills? Any right-thinking parent would quake with fear to hear that footballers were coming to their daughter’s school to give a little bit of inspiration.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
>This doesn’t mean Darren is finished as an MP. I don’t think enough information is available to jump to conclusions.
Of course he is finished. DPF… I think sometimes you let your general respect for some politicians political skills get in the way of common sense. This isn’t Italy where Berlusconi can get away with having sex with teenagers. Regardless of what decision the Police make, Hughes will have an allegation of sexual assault hanging over him. And it is almost certain the papers are going to be full of stories of late night partying, random pickups, and the sort of behaviour that most people don’t get to enjoy because most people have to work for a living and weren’t picked for a career with the Labour Party at the age of 24.
Just as an aside, Labour MPs are expressing their support for Hughes in great numbers. Have any expressed their support for the alleged victim?
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 3:35 pm
So you would require any spokesperson on education to be married or in a monogomous relationship and known not to be a cheater, or if single not allowed to see students at high school or university students socially – how about school and university staff …?
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
Labour simply continue to shoot themselves in the foot. One has now to question why key should wait until November. By that time much of the goodwill and patience around the earthquake in chch will have evaporated and other people around the country may also be dissaffected as capital projects are inevitably deferred. Labour is a shambles as is ACT and the Maori party is in trouble as well..
National could run close to an absolute majority right now. The chch earthquake and need for clear decisions gives Key the justification.
It would be entertaining to simply watch labour self destruct through a campaign right now.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
So the shadow minister for silly walks takes a decisive step, a step in the right (left) direction but in reality is just stumbling on the steps of the gallows when the party takes it’s inevitable steps as soon as someone thinks a moment in the sun could be an opportunity for five minutes of fame and give their super a nice little boost. For so many being an MP is way above their station so why not a year as leader of the opposition and it will look good on the CV.
Vote:Street for senior whip, that will be very popular with some of the more adventurous members.
March 24th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
No. Nothing like that exists any more. It was abolished quite a while ago.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
“of course it is possible Hughes will resign.”
Vote:Get real. This bloke is in the same position as Gaddafi.
What can he do if he resigns ? He has no career, he has nowhere to go, he would have to
get a job. Short of his ‘mother’ Helen getting him something at the trough at the U.N. WTF could
he do ? Bludging turkeys are too cunning to vote for an early Christmas.
He has no experience of in anything in the real world, he knows that.
His only chance now, and he knows it, is to hang on untill he becomes such an embarrasment
that some labour helper comes up with some enticement of a job/ position to get him out.
He’ll hang on in there untill that happens. Or the chopper comes down.
March 24th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
This is Karma for what Labour did to Brash. They undermined his career and marriage.
Nobody undermined Dr Brash’s marriage except Dr Brash himself.
If you mean Dr Brash’s political career, it is the job of opposing parties to undermine their political opponents.
If you mean Dr Brash’s long career at the Reserve Bank, Labour appointed him chairman in 1988. They continued to support him as chairman until he resigned in 2002 to stand for National.
The current Labour Opposition seems very good at undermining itself, without any help from National — who have been magnaimously quiet about the present imbroglio. Of course, they need say nothing….
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
One suspects that the allegation results as much from social embarrassment as anything else, the question to be asked of the accuser – did anything happen that you yourself have not done in “relating to a female” and did you think you were doing anything wrong when you did it? If so then you have a confession to make if you continue with the charge. Just a point mind, coz there may well be females who can say something but were not socially embarrassed enough to bother at the time. Unless they sense hypocrisy.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 3:45 pm
bereal;;;;;;;;;Sounds well qualified to be a Union boss.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 3:45 pm
I’m sure everyone knows at least one girl with a “hit-on by a married All Black” story….I know two.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
SPC>the question to be asked of the accuser – did anything happen that you yourself have not done in “relating to a female”
In which case the accuser will almost certainly answer “no, I’ve never sexually assaulted a female… most people haven’t”. Where does that leave you?
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
I am concerned at the level of sexual morality required to be a Member of Parliament now. It seems to be getting higher. Much of this is Labour’s fault of course, as they have delighted in the slip-ups of the Coddingtons, Brashes and Worths of this world, and made much capital out of them. Now they are caught out in their own trap, and I hope it learns them the lesson that every time you point the finger, three point right back at you.
There is nothing wrong with coming on to an 18yo if you are a 32yo as far as I can see. You may not have a lot in common, and having had a lot of it I’m now of the view that casual sex is not an overly wise course of action, but propositioning someone of legal age is not a crime, nor should it be. Nor should it disqualify anyone from public office. While there is a lack of wisdom in putting oneself in a position where one can be accused of a crime, it’s his right to conduct himself how he wants within the law.
If Hughes is innocent of any accusation, I see no reason why his career as an MP should not continue. He should be judged on his performance as a politician, not his performance in the boudoir.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 3:55 pm
Poneke if Dr Brash wanted to be a silly sod in his married life that was a matter for him. It was not a public matter unless it was illegal or hypocritical. It was neither of those things. It was however a distraction for a government that had acted corruptly in winning the election. Still, when you deliberately undermine the democratic process what’s a bit of public humiliation and marriage distruction?
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
@Graeme Edgeler at 3.39pm.
Vote:Thank you for the correction. I started hunting around the Parliamentary website and I guess it was one of the things that changed in 2003. Not being a lawyer I wouldn’t bet on my having read it correctly though.
March 24th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
Mark
You beat me to it. This country needs hard decisions now and I don’t think anyone could quibble with a decision to go back to the voters for a clear mandate to do things that they say they will hold off doing because of undertakings they made during the last election.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
It’s as likely davidp, the answer would be otherwise. If he feels innocent of any such charge in his own past behaviour he may see the person he has accused as innocent as well.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
I heard the activity that is suspected here being described as him being known as “the AC/DC adaptor” – the discussion was very funny and the reference was to those adaptors one uses to change the plug type when you are overseas – you know – youve one plugged into the next one – and in fact you could have a series of adaptors lugged into each other – 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 etc…………..
There have been many stories of Hughes predatory behaviour over the last few years.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
I’d like to think that Goff said to Hughes, “You’re relieved!” And Hughes replied, “Not very!”
Or something like that.
Parliament’s a sitcom, right?
And Goff’s always making dad jokes. “Phil, I’m in trouble.” “Hi, Introuble! I’m Phil!”
“Phil, we’re doing a photo op at a National Park.” “We ought to be doing it in a LABOUR park!”
And then the Labour caucus all put their hands on their hips and roll their eyes and say, “Phiiiiiiil.”
And Hone’s always trying to sneak into Labour caucus meetings in ridiculous disguises, like dressed as a chair or Ronald McDonald. And Mallard picks him up and chucks him out like Jazzy Jeff on Fresh Prince.
WAAAGH!!
This concept has legs. Have your people call my people.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
Ryan, it’s a pity Leslie Nielsen is dead, it would be opportune for him to stick his head in the door and say “I just want to tell you both good luck. We’re all counting on you.”
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 4:34 pm
A craven, calculating, and above risk-averse Prime Minister might be tempted to go now. By that is not Key’s style. It would look too much like him just being another politician. He also has balls of steel, being a former currency trader: take your position and have the courage to back yourself.
Labour isn’t finished self-destructing. The PM has gained considerable political capital out of how he has dealt with the earthquakes. The Budget will be tough, but he is being honest with the population: times are tough, we have to do tough things, but on the really contentious stuff, like asset sales or WFF, I am going to seek a mandate, so you can’t accuse me of having a secret agenda.
I am still predicting that come November, National will be able to govern in its own right.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 4:35 pm
“Filibuster? I nearly killed ‘er!”
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 4:39 pm
“Trevor, you’re needed in the House immediately!”
“The House? What is it?!”
“A big room with lots of MPs yelling childish jokes at each other, but that’s not important right now.”
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 4:47 pm
Little: Goff, how soon before you can let the public know?
Vote:Goff: I can’t tell.
Little: You can tell me. I’m the Labour Party President.
Goff: No. I mean I’m just not sure.
Little: Well, can’t you take a guess?
Goff: Well, not for another two weeks.
Little: You can’t take a guess for another two weeks?
March 24th, 2011 at 4:53 pm
This comes under the heading of ‘Not a good look” Despite the police investigation outcome Hughes and the Socialists will be condemned to an on slaught of heckling in the House if Hughes remains. Right up the election Hughes will provide a target for the Nats and ACT.
Phil has to get rid of Hughes or face the prospect of riducule up to when he falls on his sword 26th November 2011.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
spc Why can’t we expect some moral rectitude among our leaders, teachers, doctors, nurses etc? Sexual behaviour isn’t necessarily immoral and single people should be able to have a good time but people in public life surely must behave with some discretion and prudence. Didn’t Hughes himself have a qualm about this impressionable boy? If so, he was the adult and should have behaved better. If not, then is he the kind of person we want in Parliament?
Vote:Parents rightly expect their kids will be safe from sexual predators.
Hughes had a moral duty of care towards this boy but if you let your selfish lusts override any kind of moral standard then shove off and find another job.
March 24th, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Ryan: Brilliant adaption of a Leslie Nielsen line there. I LOLed.
BlairM:
In a nutshell.
And those using the term “predator” and “predatory”… why is it that you seem to trot this term out only when there’s an age gap between sleazor and sleazed upon? I always shake my head when “schoolies week” rolls round in Oz and the cops tell everyone how they’ll be looking out for “toolies”; older guys who try to hit on young (17+) drunk and promiscuous female school leavers. And all the young, drunk and promiscuous male school leavers go “Yay! Thanks, man! Less competition!”
Or perhaps you think they only show up hoping for a nice game of Scrabble.
Not that I’m condoning unwanted sexual attention, but if you don’t want it, the age of the person doing it would seem irrelevant. And if we condemn anyone for asking the first time (as opposed to persisting when it’s been made clear it’s unwelcome) then we’re not only removing the raison d’etre for every nightclub in the world, but condemning the human race to extinction.
In short, seems Hughes did what a few hundred other people did that night… tried it on and got knocked back. Oops, embarrassing, but hardly credibility destroying. And, I’d suggest, healthier (and cheaper for the taxpayer, as I’m assuming he paid for it all himself) than his colleague’s propensity for porn movies on our dime.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Rex – “In short, seems Hughes did what a few hundred other people did that night… tried it on and got knocked back. ”
Vote:And yet those hundreds of other people aren’t the subject of a police investigation.
March 24th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
Are voting age adults really to be described as impressionable boys, kids who need to be kept safe?
And what has the term predator to do with social activity?
As for a “moral duty of care” existing between adult citizens …
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Not knowing what the allegations are nor what is being investigated it’s all pointless speculation.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
I think it comes down to this: Hughes is a wannabe Cougar.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
RightNow points out:
Speaking as one with firsthand knowledge… your chances of being investigated and/or arrested and subsequently pilloried for something which would normally result in police declining to act are proportional to how much of an opponent of the government of the day you happen to be. Likewise – as was demonstrated more times than one can recall – the chances of you getting away with blatant offending excused as “assisting your constituents” or some such nonsense is proportional to how liked (or strategically necessary) you are to the government of the day.
In some cases that’s because the government of the day chooses to interfere in the process, as happened under Labour. However I don’t think that’s occurred in this case.
Instead, it’s arisen because the police have strategically moudled themselves into a willing tool of the government (as opposed to the greater public good) such that they act in aticipation of its wishes.
They will act to protect and further the interests of the government of the day and it’s cronies (“wot stolen emails? Nope, can’t find the perpetrator… move along”) and, in return, expect their own excesses to be excused, defended and, if all else fails, made legal. And sadly, their expectation is right.
Which is why we need an independent Anti Corruption Commission in this country.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
spc So what would you call it?
Vote:Here’s a scenario. Young male at first orientation week, goes to debate, invited along by MP to Wellington bars where he is plied with free booze and then invited to carry on drinking at home – that’s pretty tempting for a youngster away from home and entering the adult world.
Now wouldn’t you expect one of the nation’s leaders, on the public payroll, accustomed to lecturing the rest of us on how to live our lives, spend our money etc etc, to look after this boy, watch his drinking, call it a day and put him in a taxi to get him home safely?
Or is it OK for any adult to take advantage of a starry-eyed kid?
I am amazed you feel this situation is an acceptable aspect of adult social activity.
These two were not on an equal footing.
Adults need to exercise some discretion, especially if they aspire to be cabinet ministers.
I expect better from those who purport to know better than us and make laws to regulate our lives.
March 24th, 2011 at 5:32 pm
a really interesting situation on many fronts .. not sure where to start:
1/ Dazza is likely to be gay, or at least ACDC. I couldn’t give a shit (no pun intended). 10% of the population are suspected of being gay and it’s not against the law (aspects of what they do maybe, I don’t really know or care).
2/ I’m a lttle queasy about a 30+ bloke fancying 18yo’s males and being an Education Spokesperson/Minister.
3/ I would hate to see someone so into politics and becoming a MP getting the DCM because they were randy
4/ the interesting part starts over 3/ above. Dazza is a “senior” member of a party who have introduced oppositions sex lives into the political arena .. Daffy and his “talk about affairs” comment in Parliament about Brash, which ultimately lead to his court appearance for common assault and then the incredible attack on Richard Worth with Goff at the for front. Based on these instances, Dazza should be gone-burger .. sorry but they started it.
5/ Goff has really fucked up here .. goodbye Phil.
6/ who will be leader then .. Parker the fidget?? good grief, Silent T (hope so)
7/ bring back Chris carter
shit gotta go .. just getting started too
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
BeaB suggests:
“Boy”? Know many 18 year olds do you? There’s a few Australian ones coming home in body bags from Afghanistan at present. Pity about them facing the Taliban and all, but at least now they’re safe from that far greater threat, teh gayz!!11!!!
I have a son that age… I’m quite comfortable with the fact that he’s out and about of an evening. If he was hit upon once by another man who’d misread the signals he’d know enough to politely decline. If the person persisted… well I wouldn’t want to be standing anywhere near, as I suspect his bowling arm would get some exercise. And that’s pretty much what happens every night in some pub or club someplace in the city. And there it ends… unless you’re an MP.
The only test of accepability for an MP isn’t whether they’re trying to f**k with a person over the age of consent but whether they’re trying to f**k with our freedoms – and on that basis 90% of them fail. Their only moral duty is to act as a genuine representative of their electors (the job of an MP, the one they sought), not as some sort of paragon of sexual virtue – an office to which they never sought to be appointed.
The only time their personal behaviour becomes relevant is if they have sought that office by, as you say, “lecturing the rest of us on how to live our lives” in terms of our personal morality, and then we find they’re hiring rent boys or somesuch. But even that is essentially about, first, their honesty as a politician and, second, their status as a hypocrite and not about their doing something which hundreds of their own electors do.
While some on the left do take great delight in adopting a “holier than thou” stance (as do someon the right), I don’t recall Hughes being one of them, do you?
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Rex – the simpler explanation is that those hundreds of other people didn’t break the law when they hit on someone. It’s ok to say Hi and offer a drink or ask for a dance. I used to have great success in my younger days by simply asking as many girls as it took until one said yes. Salesmen will tell you it’s a numbers game, same for picking up partners in a bar.
Vote:The difference is that most of us never cross the line into criminal behaviour. The fact that Hughes is being investigated suggests that there is a distinct possibility his behaviour crossed that line.
Mind you, as Pete points out, we don’t know all the facts and it is all speculation for now. For my own part, to be consistent, I’m reluctant to rush to judgement. Any number of outcomes may yet transpire.
March 24th, 2011 at 5:41 pm
I would say that the number of ways of portraying the situation from a responsible behaviour viewpoint are many as you alone have already demonstrated. I’ll ignore the choice of words – you say it’s wrong to socialise with younger adults, it’s wrong to socialise with those of lesser status in society, its wrong for politicians to socialise with those of ones portfolio area, it’s wrong for those in public service jobs to have a private life …
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
Rex>The only time their personal behaviour becomes relevant is if they have sought that office by, as you say, “lecturing the rest of us on how to live our lives” in terms of our personal morality, and then we find they’re hiring rent boys or somesuch.
So if Hughes had lectured people about drinking… making statements such as:
“Sadly, far too often, drunks don’t think.”
…and…
“We have an opportunity to work together in many ways to create a safer and more responsible drinking environment, but National still wants to play politics. That’s a real shame.”
…and…
“What he doesn’t say is that if the blood alcohol limit isn’t reduced from 0.08g of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 0.05g, then some people will always be too drunk to make a rational decision before getting behind the steering wheel.”
So that if it was then alleged that Hughes has used alcohol on more than one occasion to help him “pick up” in such a way that a complaint has been made to police, then I think it’d be okay to note that Hughes had taken a “holier than thou” stance on alcohol. And then put the boot in.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 6:08 pm
From the Herald:
“Mr Goff has also admitted he was wrong to call for Prime Minister John Key to sack Richard Worth soon after a police complaint was made against him.
“Mr Worth resigned soon afterward and no charges were laid.
“Mr Goff said he had now learned some things about the complexity of such situations.
“‘I’m going to be the first to admit I was wrong in the judgment I made at that time. People are entitled to be regarded as innocent until they are proven guilty. I believe I got it wrong, in hindsight, yes.’”
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 6:14 pm
“Rectum?”
“Damn near killed ‘im!”
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
Admitidly I have not read every comment on this but the majority of the ones I have read seem to think this is about and MP a 18 year old and homosexual sex.
Its not , its about a complaint of a crime i.e the complainant will have alleged to the police that he has been at the least indecently assaulted, at worst rape.
The police do not do search warrants on ex Ministers houses because some 18 year old got a bit pissed.
If the complainant was an 18 year was a female all hell would be raining down , its not about sexuality, its about an alleged crime.
Even if the complainant was homosexual ( and who cares) the no word still applies , and being incapacitated by drink is seen by the Courts as a no, shit loads of case law on that one, as is intimidation by a seemingly more powerful person.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
The hughes story led TV1 news, for about 2 minutes, then a 3 minute piece followed closely….wait for it…Prison bus drivers stopped for coffee..gasp!!!
It is all that bloody Collins fault, God, someone could have let out all the crims out with the flick of a switch.
It was nice to get some balanced reporting with a comment from plug clayton.
Pathetic.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 6:31 pm
The thing is, Hughes is not really an adult. Where and when did he qualify to have any valid political opinion as to how society should behave? He is a classic case of a pampered, entitled, spineless, boneless , untested crawler. And that’s not even being personal. Tugger Jones and Tamihere also come to mind. And we pay the bastards!
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
The crime side of this is not being discussed because that’s not something we can comment on.
The question is whether the matter being complained about is little more than usual male fumbling about and the complainant not letting it rest there because of the embarrassing and unwanted nature of it, or something more.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
@ Lofty – did you notice that Cosgrove used EXACTLY the same words (flick of a switch) as the inmate who wrote to TVNZ. Two possibilities I suppose; either Cosgrove wrote the letter for the inmate, or more likely, the inmate was Phillip Field
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
I saw that as well georgeb .. talk about cornered .. why would anyone listen to him now KNOWING if things turn to shit in an area of his, he will say I was wrong then BUT I’m right now
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 6:50 pm
Published facts and afaik not seriously challenged, drinks at more than one bar after a celebrity debate (with our without alcohol?) then took the teenager 4 months out of school to his place of residence where the alleged events leading to the investigation supposedly occurred.
Vote:The “facts” indicate much more than an attempt at a “pickup” more like grooming and then action to achieve a wanted outcome by a man in a position of power over a teenager who may have been incredibly naive but as such deserved a shitload more than Hughes is suggested to have provided as a responsible older male. The airwaves have been obsessed with the retention of a convicted drink driver as head boy of Hastings Boys High where a sober, considered action by a headmaster is being challenged by shrills, this is nuclear by comparison.
March 24th, 2011 at 6:51 pm
davidp:
I agree Hughes is a santctimonious little prat but don’t think his statements quite make the threshold into hypocrisy though I agree they’re veering close. The last one you cite clearly relates to the level of judgment needed to drive a car, not decide whether to hit on someone (or agree to be hit on). I completely disagree with Hughes’ position on the limit, but concern about what you perceive as the risks of killing someone (something most sane people would actively try to avoid) and using alcohol to lubricate a social situation and enhance your chances of getting a leg over are so different as to exempt him for that one, methinks.
“Sadly, far too often, drunks don’t think” certainly activates the irony alert and comes closest to hypocrisy, but I’m presuming he was again speaking in terms of not thinking before they get behind a wheel.
There’s a world of difference between the recklessness of “I’m probably pissed but I’ll be right to drive home” and “s/he looks attractive, I’ll buy him / her a few drinks to make me look more attractive”. Most of us, I imagine, would avoid the former and, if we’ve ever done it, feel guilty. Whereas I suspect most of us aat one time or another have done the latter. I know I have.
In short, using alcohol to “pick up” but then suggesting people don’t place the lives of others at risk as a result of drinking (albeit, as I said, I think Hughes wrong on that) don’t, in my view, seem incompatible positions.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
Ah yes IV2 well deduced.
Vote:It never occured to me that Field may well be the fink.
March 24th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
SPC Fuck off …..don’t be an apologist,…..” fumbling about”.. you drongo…of course there’s something more, the police have done a search warrant on an ex Minister of the Crowns home.
That in its self is very serious shit. Jesus wept…fumbling about and I presume you have a vote
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
gravedodger:
And at least two clear years over the age of consent.
Ah I’m so glad someone’s dredged up that term. Now please define it. I’ve been involved in the case of a man asked at a bus stop for a cigarette by a 14 yo girl. He obliged (yes, he shouldn’t have). They got to talking. She suggested he might like to take her for a drink. He demurred. She got the pip and reported him. Since they got on the bus and got off at different stops there were several dozen witnesses to the fact he never took her anywhere, did anything etc. So the police tried to get him on a law against “grooming” – that being the handing over of the cigarette.
“That’s a very pretty outfit”, said to a female (even if a relative) under 16 can technically be “grooming”. So can the giving of any gift. Goodness knows what’ll become of me if my best friend’s 4 yo daughter grows up and mentions I’ve bought her birthday and Christmas presents, and the occasional ice cream.
“Grooming” is one of these hysteria-related terms that is used to imply sinister and, by imlication, illegal intent to everyday activities such as buying drinks for someone you fancy in a bar. IMO it ought to be struck from the lexicon and certainly has no place in a rational debate.
That implies Hughes has or had something the teenager needed or at least wanted so desperately he felt unable to repel his advances. What would that be, exactly? A teacher is in a position of power, even if the student is over 16. So is an employer. That doesn’t, of course, mean anything – or it shouldn’t – unless the person misuses that power in a coercive manner.
Someone physically bigger and menacing might conceivably be said to have some power over you once they got you home, but that’s certainly not Hughes! So what’s this “power” he exerts?
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 7:09 pm
Pauleastbay:
As I explained in my 5.20, the reverse is in fact true. We’re getting closer to being the Zimbabwe of the South Pacific every day, thanks primarily to the way the Clark Administration took to using the police and security services for political ends – a role which the police were only too happy to embrace and continue, even though Key’s government seems much less willing to misuse the symbiotic realtionship.
There’s a certain schadenfreude to be had from watching the creature Labour created unleashed on one of their own, but alas my concerns over the erosion of our civil and political rights outweighs that.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 7:41 pm
I thought I might leave a ‘tongue in cheek’ response but am afraid it might be taken the wrong way
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Rex>In short, using alcohol to “pick up” but then suggesting people don’t place the lives of others at risk as a result of drinking (albeit, as I said, I think Hughes wrong on that) don’t, in my view, seem incompatible positions.
As far as I know, Hughes has never issued a statement or made a speech about the use of alcohol to get sex. So technically you’re right. But I think the material I quoted shows Hughes lecturing people on the dangers of alcohol and criticising the government for not taking measures to crack down on alcohol use. And I’m using the word “use” rather than “abuse” because he is bagging the government for refusing to lower a limit that is reasonable and safe to a lower level that seems to owe more to the desire to nanny people than any hard evidence. Therefore the allegation that he is a heavy drinker and uses alcohol to get people significantly younger than himself in to bed is relevant and shows some hypocrisy.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 7:50 pm
So what’s this “power” he exerts?
Think back to when you were 18 and your thought processes at that age. This young guy was obviously quite taken with politics, for some reason some people think it’s really special.
A senior politician from the party you support shows deep interest in you. Why would you not be keen on doing everything to please that person. Until of course they reveal it’s not politics they’re interested in.
I’m afraid Rex I often agree with and appreciate your unique insights into many things, however on this occasion I think you’re underestimating the predatory nature of Hughes’ behaviour, which he has demonstrated more than once.
This fact – it’s not the first time – is the worst part for me.
By all means let’s wait for the facts to come in. Prima facie to me, it’s predatory, but I’m prepared to wait and see. However I’m also in agreement with PaulEast, re: police don’t do this lightly. I realise your mileage varies, but they’re not going to fit up an opposition MP, just to please the govt and no judge is going to treat lightly granting a search warrant for the private residence of the deputy leader of the opposition.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 7:55 pm
Disagree Rex,
Labour politicised the NZ like no bodies business, at a high officer level ( Robinson and Broad both very very ordinary Commissioners) but that warrant will have been signed by a Judge me thinks and not a JP or Registrar. Labour apologists are not realising how serious this is.
The NZ Police still conduct a very complete investigation and things will being done very correctly on this one.
The point Ii was trying to make with my first comment was Labour are deluding themselves absolutely if they do not believe this is a really serious matter. Guilt or innocence is not for the police to decide they just get to do the investigation, but if I was Goff I would be stepping as far away from anyone of his team involved in this as far as I possibly could.
List MP’s are not hard to find.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 8:02 pm
BTW, compare and contrast:
Asked if he had some sympathy for Mr Hughes, Mr Key said: “These personal issues are never great when they play out in the public domain, but it’s for him and Mr Goff to resolve.”
and
“Labour regards Dr Brash as a corrosive and cancerous person within the New Zealand political system. From the time he became National Party leader he started his polarising, extreme attacks and behaviour.”
The attack coming despite a previous call for an end to the mudslinging.
“I don’t muckrake,” Clark said earlier on Close Up.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
ACT MP Hilary Calvert put up a raft of amendments as she tried to change the title.
Among her alternatives were the Marine and Coastal Area (Secret Deals Behind Closed Doors Without Public Scrutiny) Bill, the Marine and Coastal Area (Different Rules for Different Races) Bill, the Marine and Coastal Area (Abuse of Process) Bill and the Different Laws for Different Races Bill.
They were ruled out of order on the grounds that her titles didn’t correctly describe its contents, and the legislation survived under the title the Government gave it: the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill.
Ms Calvert said it was a disgrace.
“It’s one of the worst bills to come before this House in living memory, it has made a mockery of our democracy,” she said.
“We’ve seen the select committee process at its worst — despite spending months going around the country and listening to thousands and thousands of submissions violently opposed to it, the select committee sent it back with no amendments.”
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 8:46 pm
davidp:
Yeah, I guess what I’m saying is “no greater hypocrite than the average MP”, really. And sanctimonious prat, as I said earlier.
Pauleastbay:
Will it? You could well be right, I’m 10 years out of practice with NZ law, but back then (and still the case here in WA) police could go to just a Magistrate or even – God forbid – a JP to get permission to raid your house.
And I know that a NZ judge signed an arrest warrant, and another signed an extradition warrant – giving up a citizen to the rough-and-ready judicial process of another nation – based on nothing but the sworn statement of an Australian police officer that said, basically, “trust me, we have heaps of evidence”. Which proved to be a lie.
reid:
Unaware of that, despite reading widely (thanks to Bryce Edwards’ excellent “NZ Politics Daily”). If that’s the case I agree it casts it in a different light, but yes, we do need to wait.
This strikes so close to home I’ve decided to write a rare post of my own on it rather than hog the conversation too much here (apologies for the link whoring DPF).
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 9:07 pm
Rex
I think your past experiences are colouring your usual reasonable ( not always agreed with ) comments on this one.
Its not a case of ” police bad ” – its a case they are investigating that involves an MP and the deputy leader of the Labour Party ,actually the party makes no difference , it is simply a matter involving our Parliament so things will be very correct.
The police will absolutely be hating this, its high profile, involving politicians and their machines = they will be in a no win situation.
If the investigation proves there will be no further action it will be a white wash because an MP was involved, if there are charges laid it will be because of political pressure.
One thing I can guarantee is that if charge(s) is are laid there will be nothing but support for the police from the gay community – they do not condone non consensual contact anymore than the supposed mainstream.
The labour caucus is an entirely different matter of course
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 9:11 pm
Sorry Rex, can’t agree, and for once I think Reid is actually right
THis is a pretty clear cut case of someone taking shameless advantage of their position and apparent glamour to manipulate a silly star struck kid into bed.
Hughes (who does have form – cf Act staffer at 2008 Gallery party) plies teenager with alcohol and tries to take advantage
Hughes being drunk misses cue that kid is star struck not keen
My guess is that this is probably exactly how Hughes was “inducted” into the Labour party, and that he simply assumed it was normal.
Or it could be that the Ginga ninja turns out to be crap in bed and kid remembers that he is straight, and taking one for the labour party isnt really in the plan (buyers remorse)
As a number of commentators have said, shagging 18year olds is not illegal. Its simply unwise if you are in a position of power and authority. What did the man say, never be found with a live boy or a dead girl in your bed, both are antithetical to a successful political career. Perhaps Darren could ask his uncle Davy for a job (Davy never hesitates to hoover up crap for the Labour party, so it shouldnt be a problem).
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 9:39 pm
For a young Labour Party follower to feel he actually needed to go to the Police instead of just telling him to get lost, would indicate something more serious than just a “how about it?” ??
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 9:39 pm
I suppose this isn’t the opportune moment to remind us that recently the political pundits were proposing that Shane Jones’ career be resurrected and he be given the education portfolio? Ye Gods! are any of our offspring safe from these depraved communists? Talk about the frying pan or the fire!
Vote:Rex I admire your sagacity, but let’s face it mate you are pissing against the wind here.
March 24th, 2011 at 9:40 pm
the deity formerly known as nigel6888 says:
When I was 18 I was starting out in a career in broadcasting; an industry with more than its fair share of homosexuals and one which I’d already made evident (by literally building four radio stations to get myself on air) I’d do anything to be a part of.
Nonetheless I knew enough to keep an eye on my alcohol consumption and to make it clear where my boundaries lay. As a result I went happily on a few outings with a semi-closeted (so as to remain a favourite with the grannies) high profile radio personality of the time with whom I shared a liking for light opera and even stayed overnight at his place on occasion, and he was never anything other than the perfect host.
If I’d gotten hopelessly drunk and allowed myself to be cajoled into doing something I later regretted, it’d have been entirely my own fault.
At some point we have to stop trying to protect people from themselves. Indeed we have a duty to stop impinging on their freedom to live their own lives, and with that comes the freedom to make their own mistakes.
I’d suggest the last point at which we give up the role of nanny is the point at which we accept the person is of an age to be sent to war (though personally I believe it is sooner).
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 9:46 pm
Rex – I’d suggest that taking up the role of nanny was possiby more prescient in this case . . . but I wasn’t there so I’d be chattin fart. Actually, come to think of it none of us was there – and this is the interesting thing isn’t it that we appear to have developed a collective visualisation of the situation, when in fact none of us know precisely what went on? What about ‘remorse’ I wonder if that might emerge as a factor here. . wouldn’t be the first time, or the last. . . ..
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 9:49 pm
The question is whether the matter being complained about is little more than usual male fumbling about and the complainant not letting it rest there because of the embarrassing and unwanted nature of it, or something more.
Technically a kiss and grope is indecent assault whether the breast or genitals (and is hard to verify if there are no witnesses), but what police can investigate about it is to survey the scene and see whether it corresponds to the complainants version of events as to remembering details accurately.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
SPC,
So what you are suggesting is that the alleged victim is in fact the villain who is creating a complaint over ‘nothing’ and that the real victim in all of this is poor Darren Hughes.
An interesting world you inhabit.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 9:59 pm
It was all a big misuderstanding.
Apparently Hughes wanted to cook some poultry and it just happened the 18 year old was in the kitchen and he said, “Would you mind holding my cock and pullet, while I do the stuffing.”
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 10:08 pm
So many names that got rejected by their voters now in line to get back in due to these back door shenanigans. What the fuck, MMP? What the fuck. Roll on the referendum!
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 10:15 pm
Lee C
Precisely, with regards to none of us being there. That’s why I’m trying to avoid speculating on this particular scenario and talking more generally about the principles of taking responsibility for ones own actions etc.
The collective visualisation of most of us I think, to be fair, is that an MP and an 18 year old seemed to be enjoying one another’s company up till the point they arrived at the MP’s home – both having consumed alcohol, according to witnesses – and then some time later the 18 year old laid a complaint.
When saying we can’t protect people from their own recklessness forever, I’m talking about all 18 year olds, including myself at that age (though the memory is growing faint…
) not just this one.
While we can’t and maybe never will, know the specifics of this case, it raises a lot of general principles that need airing… chief amongst them, I think, our propensity to refer to often quite self-aware young adults as “boy” or “girl”, like the infamous (in Australia at least) “St Kilda girl” who was “taken advantage of” by some AFL players and then published nude photos on the net (though not necessarily of the players she’d “known”).
Turns out she had previously been pregnant and then, at the height of the scandal, got involved with the middle aged, married, former player-now-manager Ricky Nixon, and then shopped photos of him to the media. She had, in other words, the quite sophisticated AFL machine spinning like a top.
None of which suggests she ought to be subject to any unwanted sexual advances. But calling her a “girl” conveys… quite deliberately IMO… a status of naivete and victimhood which is not applicable.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 10:20 pm
From the look on Goff’s face tonight on TV, he is not a happy man. Perhaps he knows this is serious and is going get even messier.
Vote:His hair might go grey again from the worry.
March 24th, 2011 at 10:28 pm
Rex not quite sure why you conclude this situation is as you paint it.
Sure none of us know what actually happen. We will shortly.
Meanwhile, we have a 34 yo MP who was known for his aggressive indiscretion esp when drinking.
A straight 18 yo who bolted out the door and into a passing police car whose family and gf is reportedly outraged by what happened.
A search warrant issued probably by a Judge on the leader of the opposition’s house – probably cause I seriously doubt a JP or registrar would take that upon themselves and I doubt the police would ask such a person given who was involved.
I’d say even though the facts aren’t yet in, it’s so far not pointing in the direction you seem to be indicating.
His hair might go grey again from the worry.
Only monetarily, BeaB. Come election time it will again be chestnut brown or whatever it is he thinks looks good. After all, he is a Liarbore politician.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
bhudson, the complaint of indecent assault is a broad one and covers a lot, we really have no idea. Recently someone charged with sexual violation pleaded guilty to indecent assault on a minor.
Currently the founder of WikiLeaks is to go to trial for rape for continuing sex without a condom and for continuing sex while another person was asleep, and only because they touched base about both having similar experiences about him – so they felt he should be held to account.
What motivates someone to lay a complaint is multi-faceted, it’s not always the seriousness of the events.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 10:33 pm
What motivates someone to lay a complaint is multi-faceted, it’s not always the seriousness of the events.
However in this case it would appear that it is in fact, the seriousness of the event.
Given that this person was very very keen on Liarbore in the first place.
Try not to dissemble SPC. Or if you have to, get a better story.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 10:35 pm
I may have missed it, but can someone link to the confirmation that a search warrant was executed? I’ve seen reports that a search was carried out, and that King refused to say whether Police had executed a search warrant, but I haven’t seen anything to suggest that they refused to comply with a Police request to search the house.
Secondly:
“For a young Labour Party follower to feel he actually needed to go to the Police instead of just telling him to get lost, would indicate something more serious than just a “how about it?” ??”
1. Not a labour party “follower” – the reports make that very clear.
2. The likelihood that a complaint would be made was increased by the fact that the complainant walked out of the house into the path of a Police car.
For anyone who’s worked in or around Parliament, stories of impropriety are commonplace. This may not be a good thing, and this may be something entirely worse, but I’ll wait to hear what the Police say (and what actually happened – if we find out) before passing judgement.
But get back to you enjoying your Schadenfreude. Don’t let me bother you.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 10:36 pm
SPC,
Your two examples say a great deal about you
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 10:36 pm
davidp “…too drunk to make a rational decision before getting behind the steering wheel.”
In this case it sounds like someone was trying to get behind the exhaust pipe…
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 10:41 pm
I say, charges are not always indicative of the seriousness of the event and you say, in this case it appears they are. Appears they are?
I don’t think the politics of the 18 year old would have much relevence to whether they would lay a complaint or make their complaint any more or any less valid etc.
I don’t need to get a better story if you have to resort to silly claims about dissembling to give your post some bravado conclusion.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 10:44 pm
bhudson, really? Is that an attempt to throw mud?
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 10:48 pm
reid:
Weiszguy makes some excellent points above as to alternative reasons for some of the events.
Yes but why? A straight 18 year old might well have been shcked by an unexpected (to him) but friendly advance. Maybe he had no idea up to that point that he was wanted for his body rather than his mind, and took off like a scalded cat simply because he was shocked. It doesn’t necessarily indicate he’s the victim of an offence.
And who are relying on hearsay, so that’s irrelevant.
That’s a crucial bit of information we don’t have. As weiszguy says, we don’t even know for sure there was a warrant, do we? King could just have thought it better politics to comply with a request. If it was a warrant and it was issued by a judge then that at least indicates that someone with – hopefully – a decent judicial mind weighed the evidence.
But, as I’ve pointed out above, three judges – one in Perth, two in Wellington – rubber stamped my arrest and extradition on nothing more than “trust me, I’m a police officer”. Doesn’t give me a great deal of confidence that they treat serious applications very seriously. I naively thought that, at least at the extradition hearing, they’d test the evidence before taking my rights as a NZ citizen to the protection of my own country and flushing them. The judge didn’t – simply confirmed I was me and brought the gavel down in favour of the cops.
It’s not a case of my mileage varying – we’re talking three distinct hearings before three different judges in two jurisdictions.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 10:49 pm
SPC,
Not at all. You did a perfectly good job of throwing it at yourself. If you can’t see that then I would suggest that actually reinforces my point
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 10:50 pm
I’m sorry but the defence of the complaint being laid because of the “embarrassing and unwanted nature” of the advance doesn’t wash. We are talking about a high profile political figure here, does anyone seriously think that the MP has less to lose than the 18yo by the revelation of this? If it were that embarrassing surely the smart thing would be to let it be and go on about your business, afterall Mr Hughes was highly unlikely to be going about bragging about this encounter.
The two options that spring to mind are that Mr. Hughes was set up or that there is just reason to investigate the claim(s). Given that the little we know about the complainant points to him having a favourable disposition to the Labour Party, it looks like the first option is rather unlikely. I would hasten to add that just reason to investigate does not equate with guilt.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 10:53 pm
bhudson, or that you have completely missed the context of the points I was making.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 11:03 pm
SPC,
Irrespective of the context you believe you were setting you made two very illuminating points within your comments:
1. That indecent assault on a minor is a somewhat more trivial offence than sexual violation
2. Assange’s alleged offences are trivial compared to his role (in your view) as some noble exposer of hidden truths (when, in fact, those alleged offences are anything but trivial in the country he is alleged to have committed them.)
As I said, they say a great deal about you.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 11:04 pm
Why would King have refused to say whether or not a warrant was executed if it wasn’t?
Surely in the circumstances its elementary political management to say yes, we allowed the police to search the house for we had nothing to hide. But she didn’t say that, did she?
It [bolting] doesn’t necessarily indicate he’s the victim of an offence.
No it doesn’t Rex but then the fact the police went a-knocking seems to indicate that, doesn’t it.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 11:11 pm
I quite like Hughes whining in the Herald today
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10714576
“In most jobs, if you make a mistake then so long as you fix it and learn from it, you get on with it. But in these jobs if you make mistakes you are humiliated for it and that’s not a normal working environment.”
Yes but Darren, you didn’t learn from it did you, for this isn’t the first mistake of this nature you’ve made, is it. Secondly, in the real world, if you do make a mistake, sometimes you do get humiliated, other times you even get fired. Recall for instance that Westpac worker who mistyped the loan amount for the Rotorua couple. She got fired, didn’t she. Happens quite often as a matter of fact. Newsflash Darren, if YOU are fired as a result of this, it DOESN’T mean you’re a victim. I think the clue for you is, you didn’t learn from the other times you’ve done it.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 11:13 pm
Yeah, completely missed the points I was making. Thanks for outing yourself.
1. a person charged with sexual violation of a minor pleaded guilty to a lesser charge and the other charge was dropped.
Allegations, subsequent charges and convictions vary.
2. the Assange case demonstrated how what motivates someone to lay a complaint is multi-faceted. The two complainants were not going to do so until they realised they had similar experiences with him and conluded he should be accountable for his behaviour if this was a pattern. Neither was that motivated while it appeared to be a one off thing.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 11:14 pm
reid:
Nope. See my 5.20 and subsequent. The police are tools (of the government, even when the government, like this one, doesn’t ask them to be).
Plus people seem to think they’d go “Oh hang, on, an Opposition MP, better tread carefully”. In fact IMO the opposite occurs – the thought of landing a big fish obscures their judgment.
The police went a-knockin at my place too, reid. Turned out (by her own admission) my “victim” wasn’t a victim. At least not of me… the police, in their eagerness to get me on their hook, threatened and lied to her.
To be clear, I’m not implying guilt or innocence on Hughes’ part… I’m simply cautioning that police action + warrant does not necessarily equal even a prima facie case, as some people seem to imagine it does, as my own case and that of many others attests. Beyond that experience, I’m as clueless as the next person.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 11:20 pm
SPC,
Keep digging. It’s more fun.
1. It was reported as a plea bargain not a case of being found not guilty on the initial charge but guilty on a ‘lessor’ charge. So your point about a difference in the charge to conviction is not valid. (that still isn’t the point though – the point is you list indecent assault on a minor as a more trivial offence than sexual assault. An interesting view you hold.)
2. The motivations of the accursed are irrelevant. What is relevent is whether or not the offences took place. By calling into question their motivations you trivialize the alleged offences (which, I repeat, are anything but trivial in that country.)
So, again, they say a great deal about you
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 11:22 pm
Quite agree Rex, but based on facts to date, it’s not pointing the way you allege.
This is because the man has prior instances of predatory behaviour, especially when he’d been drinking.
Let’s wait and see.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 11:23 pm
“Why would King have refused to say whether or not a warrant was executed if it wasn’t?”
Because it’s standard procedure to neither confirm nor deny individual parts of a Police investigation? I disagree that your approach is “elementary political management”, but even if you are right, that doesn’t mean that a denial is confirmation. It’s just as likely that the media are a light on understanding of when a warrant is required – it’s not as if they’re known for their ability to do nuance.
“the police went a-knocking seems to indicate that, doesn’t it.”
No – the police have a duty to investigate. The fact that they want to look at the CCTV from the establishment suggests that this is an issue of consent. I suspect they’re trying to find information that would suggest consent.
Perhaps I’m being unfair, but I suspect many people who are gleefully rushing to convict Hughes would think differently if this was a case of themselves (or someone they knew) being accused of a sexual offence when they (or their friend) thought that everything was consensual. I’ve heard of a number of these cases. They tend to fall down on tribal lines (in this case, neatly identified in red and blue). Seeing as we know so little, it’s disturbing to see people on this forum wishing that there was a sexual assault.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 11:33 pm
[quote]The police went a-knockin at my place too, reid. Turned out (by her own admission) my “victim” wasn’t a victim. At least not of me… the police, in their eagerness to get me on their hook, threatened and lied to her.[/quote]
That’s messed up, due to personal experience I also have reason to doubt the police, though in my experience it was them simply them being lazy not actively going after me. Not nice.
Whichever way you cut this though a complaint has been laid and hopefully the investigation will come to the correct conclusion. Darren however is toast, guilty or not the innuendo will stick which will hamper his effectiveness in the house and damage the party he represents.
For this reason more than any other it would be good if the allegations are true, the alternative is potentially much more nasty.
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 11:38 pm
“This is because the man has prior instances of predatory behaviour, especially when he’d been drinking.”
Oh, please…
Can we drop the “predatory” language? He has a history of hitting on people who weren’t on the same page. Don’t we all? Have you never been to a bar? I see countless guys getting rebuffed every time I go out – does that make them predatory? Oh, and do you think he’s the first person to invite someone back to their parliamentary office? It’s amazing what you can see going on on Parliamentary offices from Pickwicks.
You really don’t need much evidence to demonise a person, do you?
Vote:March 24th, 2011 at 11:49 pm
bhudson, so you choose to confuse the difference between the issue of complaints/allegations charges and conviction outcomes and the question of what motivates someone to make a complaint, not out of ignorance, but of malice – as a device for personal silght. Says a lot about your character.
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 12:07 am
SPC,
No malice at all.
No, I see what you are trying to do and am not allowing you to. You seek to confuse the real issues by introducing items that are not relevant – what is relevant to the issue is whether or not the offence took place, not the motivations of the complainant.
The question of charge vs offence convicted of is even less relevant in this case as no charge had been made as yet and, in fact, no details of any allegation released.
It is neither my fault, nor my responsibility, that you chose to use examples that can reflect poorly on you when not interpreted in the context you wish (a context which, I would also argue, is not borne out in the words you used.)
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 12:10 am
Who said the following on his facebook page last night?
“I know, I was only 14 – 15 years old, Bloody Labour, they stole my youth, my virginity and my dignity !”
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 12:29 am
What is relevant to the issue is whether or not the offence took place, not the motivations of the complainant. W
Of course.
The question of charge vs offence convicted of is even less relevant in this case as no charge had been made as yet and, in fact, no details of any allegation released.
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 12:29 am
reid:
True enough.
bhudson:
Well actually… an indecent assault is usually at the lower end (“grabbing or groping”, to put it very broadly) compared to a sexual assault, which is usually shorthand for a charge like rape, or at least penetration without consent. I’d go look up the references, but I’m tired
*Alarms go off, streamers drop from the roof* Freudian slip of the year!!
Poor Dazza, he does seem cursed, doesn’t he. First the red hair. Then forever associated in the public mind with Helen. Now this…
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 12:36 am
bhudson Ignore my previouis post – I was denied access to the edit button after it jumped off the keyboard inadvertedley.
Yes, in so far as the court is concerned whether or not the offence occurred is the issue. But we are not debating that, but the perception of there being allegations/charges. Thus the relevance to motivation to lay a complaint and the issue of what charges lead to, not always convictions on the original charge.
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 12:46 am
Rex he was referring to the motivations of the “accuser: though there is an aspect of both accuser and accused feeling cursed at the same time by their relationship afterwards.
As to the indecent assault and sexual assault charges – I think he understands the facts of that – he was just trying to infer something about me by using one charge in relation to a child and another without specific context. A little cynical twist for inferences sake.
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 2:11 am
Ordinarily I couldn’t care less about what might occur between two adults (the “police investigation” suggests something more, but lets wait and see) by what is outstandingly hypocritical is Goff’s position on the “stunningly beautiful” Labour Party plant’s work, and on this. No amount of back-peddling makes Goff look any worse than he already does.
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 7:34 am
So Darren Hughes offered his resignation to Goff, and Goff refused?
This is another example of stunningly bad decision making from Goff. Given a gold plated opportunity to distance himslef and the party from the scandal, he turned it down. Now that this decision is public, he is going to look bad for not accepting it, and worse still if he accepts it further down the track.
For a man who has been in politics for as long as he has, he seems to know sod all about it.
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 7:34 am
Translated, RP is saying: ”Ordinarily I wouldn’t be interested in this, but because it is a Labour MP involved I’m all over it. If it were a National MP I wouldn’t have the slightest concern”
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 7:48 am
SPC,
Actually I was referring to the sorry state of using a vile offence against a child as some sort of justification to question the Hughes’ current challenges. Even more so that you tried to claim the offence the comedian was convicted of somehow proves a point that the initial scandal does not reflect the actual offence, when it was very clear that a plea bargain had been reached. I suggest that was agreed to to spare a young child and the mother the anguish of a trial.
I don’t resile from my point that choosing that example reflects on you SPC. Using a despicable crime against a child to try to manipulate your argument is not the best choice. Made even worse when the facts around that matter don’t actually support the point you were trying to make
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 7:53 am
Rex,
I wasn’t pointing to the legal scale of wrongdoing but the inappropriateness of trivializing what still amounts to a vile crime against a child (even more so when it is done for political purposes – try reviewing SPC’s comments throughout the day.)
Clearly the defence sought to cop a plea to this offence as it carries different sentencing options, a little more palatable to them than he offence as charged.
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 7:55 am
Translated, comrade maggie is saying: ”Ordinarily I wouldn’t be interested in this, but because it is a National MP involved I’m all over it. If it were a Labour MP I wouldn’t have the slightest concern”
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 8:01 am
No Maggie. Translated, RP is saying that Gaffey is likely the biggest and and most bumbling fool that has ever crawled across the political landscape.
However, he should have gone on to say that Gaffey’s decision to not accept Hughes’ resignation is just more icing on the cake for his current and incredibly amusing example of spineless and political ineptitude and hypocrisy.
That is what you meant to say isn’t it SR?
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 8:42 am
Zarchoff>Who said the following on his facebook page last night? “I know, I was only 14 – 15 years old, Bloody Labour, they stole my youth, my virginity and my dignity !”
Judith Tizard?
Phil Goff?
One of the guys at The Standard?
I give up!
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 8:46 am
bhudson
What I wrote was this.
“bhudson, the complaint of indecent assault is a broad one and covers a lot, we really have no idea. Recently someone charged with sexual violation pleaded guilty to indecent assault on a minor.”
Then I wrote “Currently the founder of WikiLeaks is to go to trial for rape for continuing sex without a condom and for continuing sex while another person was asleep, and only because they touched base about both having similar experiences about him – so they felt he should be held to account. What motivates someone to lay a complaint is multi-faceted, it’s not always the seriousness of the events.”
What you chose to read into that and the nature of your inferences says a lot about yourself. You could try debating the topic and leaving the rest out of it.
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 9:03 am
Dear old Phil. So he was wrong to harangue the PM now he understands the complexities. So, he was obtuse then? Sharper now? Why didn’t he front foot it and say there’s a difference between the PM and a cabinet minister and the Leader of the Opposition and an MP. His flip flop makes him look weak and stupid.
Vote:How can we trust him on any stance he takes – from his silly walk to his dyed hair to his adopting a probably temporary position?
And John Key sensibly just smiles and says that’s all up to Labour. He knows he doesn’t have to go on the attack because Labour is shooting itself in the foot – that’s when it comes out of their mouth.
March 25th, 2011 at 9:10 am
To all those trying to make this a rational debate where normal rules of behaviour are comparable, which part of “A MEMBER OF THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND” doesn’t alter the way the incident is viewed?
How much sympathy would the Chief Judge of the Family Court receive if he was accused of being part of a paedophile ring? How much sympathy would the Chief Justice receive if she was outed as a member of Benson-Popes alleged S&M club?
Being an MP is NOT NORMAL (sorry for shouting) as they are required to make legislation affecting every citizen on subjects as diverse as drink-driving limits, adoption laws, indecency laws, the use of your neighbour’s backyard as a military training area and the protection of fish in marine reserves.
Should we expect perfection? probably not. Should they be sacrificed like Aztec virgins if caught acting amorally? probably yes.
It is just the way it is, always has been and always should be as long as we expect the fear of consequences to act as any kind of brake on the behaviour of our representatives.
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 9:18 am
They get stood down while there is an investigation but they’re no more guilty of something until matters go through due process than anybody else.
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 9:26 am
Yes BeaB – he could have said “there was a difference between the PM and a cabinet minister and the Leader of the Opposition and an MP.” One has to be stood down immediately while the other did not require such a response unless the investigation took a while or became public knowledge. Yeah sure, Phil Goff should have been able to realise that and articulate that point as soon as this went public. Now he finds himself wandering naked in the political wash and spin cycle.
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 9:28 am
SPC,
What you also wrote was (11:13pm):
“1. a person charged with sexual violation of a minor pleaded guilty to a lesser charge and the other charge was dropped.
Allegations, subsequent charges and convictions vary. ”
So very clearly you were trying to use the offence against that child to illustrate that [your words] “allegations, subsequent charges and convictions vary”. So you were very clearly trying to use a vile crime against a child to prove a point. That attempt was made worse by the fact that example doesn’t actually prove the point you were trying to make.
Your words SPC – very clear in their intent
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 9:29 am
David, excellent post. i would suggest you submit it to the Herald.
Editorial: Accused MP failed by Goff’s mishandling
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10714788
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 9:48 am
The public perception of Darren Hughes is one where he appears on tv as a bright , dilligent young man on the cusp of a long and possibly distinguished career in politics. His private life is private and little is known in the wider community of his social activities, until now.
Vote:Presently the Police are processing a complaint, which to date is insufficiently serious enough to warrant arrest, therefore it is possible that the incident won’t have serious criminal consequences.
Darren has indicated that he did nothing wrong and in the event that that is the case then little to no information surrounding the details of the incident will be released to the public, the details could be suppressed and rightly so if the complaint is vexatious.
March 25th, 2011 at 9:53 am
It’s all been a horrible misunderstanding: Hughes was in a bar and simply said to the young man “may I push your stool in.”
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 9:58 am
bhudson
You responded to my earlier original post, but yes I later wrote the 11.13 one in response to your reply.
So you still think, the following day, that a reference to another crime or criminal case example is exploiting that crime to make a point. Yet your’e the one exploiting the nature of that crime to ignore the point I was making and make inferences. To use legalise, the whole principle of case law is precedent and association with other cases and being precious about it would disqualify anyone from a career dealing with court matters.
My point was and is still that it’s not valid to rush to presume that allegations of a sexual nature are serious ones, or would result in serious charges or a conviction on a serious charge. And that what motivates someone to lay a charge in this area is multi-facited. It can be as diverse as not laying a charge to avoid loss of privacy or a fear of public consequences (including failure to get a conviction) to laying a charge to cover up some embarrassment (an excuse for example) – and yes we agree that in the matter of a court case it’s only the facts of the case that are relevant.
As Rex has point out, indecent assault/sexual assault can include simply unwanted fondling.
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 10:03 am
The last part should have been “It can be as diverse as not making an “allegation” to avoid loss of privacy or a fear of public consequences (including failure to get a conviction) to making an “allegation” to cover up some embarrassment (an excuse for example)”
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 10:04 am
Breaking news from Beijing.
Apparently the whole thing was a tiny cock-up.
Drunk as they were, they decided to speak in Chinese, mandarin, for fun. But only Hughes could speak it whereas 18 could speak a little German and thought he would indulge.
The conversation went like this:
Hughes: Ni hao ma?.
18: Ya.
Hughes: Ni ya ma?
18: Ya.
Hughes: Wo bu shi huan ya! Wo shi huan ji!
18: Bugger me!
It was lost in translation so to speak.
We need a Chinese person to translate.
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 10:09 am
Apparently this sort of behaviour is par for the course for the Labour Party.
What I take from this is that young men, on fire for Labour Party principles, should refrain from attending Labour Party functions where there is alcohol as they will become the target of lecherous male MPs.
As the father of young teenage boys I will warn them accordingly. Of course my teenage daughter is perfectly safe at such functions??
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 10:09 am
KevinH
I think the public perception now is that you should warn your school and university student kids before they eagerly race off to events where the Labour Party is officially represented. Advise them to decline invitations to go drinking with Labour MPs, refuse to visit Labour MPs’ bedrooms and stick with their own age group.
Be aware that Labour education ministers and spokespeople may be gay and may have a fondness for the young and gullible.
This is not to promote homophobia but to make sure your kids, girls and boys, know they may be at risk.
What was Phil Goff thinking when he gave Hughes this shadow portfolio? Couldn’t he find a respectable family man or woman?
I have no problem with most sexual preferences or orientation but leave our kids alone! Especially when they are away from home for the first time.
Darren Hughes makes me feel ill. What kind of person is he that he would prey in any way, criminal or not, on a youngster like this? And did Phil Goff and Annette King know about his habits? Or Helen Clark?
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 10:18 am
Hughes: Ni hao ma? (How are you?)
18: Ya (Duck – also meaning male prostitute in China).
Hughes: Ni ya ma? (You are a duck?)
18: Ya (Duck)
Hughes: Wo bu shi huan ya! Wo shi huan ji! (I don’t like ducks! I like chickens (meaning female prostitutes).
18: Bugger me!
Ok, kind of weak, but at least I was sticking to the poultry theme! Not easy to tell two jokes in three languages under the one theme.
I have way too much time on my hands.
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 10:25 am
SPC,
My point all along was that it was a poor choice of example on your part.
It was poor due to the nature of the offence within the example and it was poor in that it doesn’t actually support the point you were trying to make (that the final conviction being different to the original allegation and/or charge proves that you can’t rely on allegations as a pointer to the seriousness of an actual offence.)
My point still stands. As does your admission that you were trying to use that specific example of a sexual offence on a child to prove a point (which, I reiterate, it doesn’t actually prove.)
I am not exploiting the nature of the crime, I am pointing out the inappropriate use of it on your part – both in fact (as it doesn’t prove your point) and in sensibility.
Your reference to precedence is a futile attempt to try to maintain justification in using the specific example – 1. it isn’t actually a legal precedent for anything and 2. it doesn’t prove your point, so even a vague notion of precedence is incorrect.
I don’t disagree that we shouldn’t leap to conclusions as to the allegations (which I don’t believe have actually been detailed in any case) or guilt. I have done neither in any comment I have made.
If you refer back to my initial comment to you on this thread, it was a response to an attempt by you to paint the alleged victim as the villain of the piece and Hughes as the victim. I have not declared Hughes to be guilty of anything, nor have I made any claim as to the nature f the allegations. If we extend Hughes the right of presumption of innocence until proven guilty, then we also do the same for the accuser (i.e. they are not guilty of suspect motivations in their complaint unless such can actually be proven.)
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 10:43 am
bhudson
So you also still claim this is an attempt to paint the complainant as the villain of the piece and Hughes as the victim.
“The question is whether the matter being complained about is little more than usual male fumbling about and the complainant not letting it rest there because of the embarrassing and unwanted nature of it, or something more.
Technically a kiss and grope is indecent assault whether the breast or genitals (and is hard to verify if there are no witnesses), but what police can investigate about it is to survey the scene and see whether it corresponds to the complainants version of events as to remembering details accurately.”
Yeah right.
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 10:53 am
You will note that leads to the issue of charges – of indecent assault and whether they are just unwanted fondling or something more. The related case before the public in the media is what it is and referring to it, in reference to original charges ending up as a conviction on a lesser charge covers the nature of sexual offending (as to what allegations are here we do not yet know, what the charges resulting will be if any we do not yet know and what if any convictions if any we do not yet know). Thus its relevance.
Other cases are points of reference, whether in relation to precedence, or sentencing, or police charges based on similar complaints in different cases and convictions in relation to charges and original allegations etc.
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 10:59 am
SPC,
Yes right. Exactly. Thanks for reposting and showing it clearly.
You focus on the “usual fumbling” to present that as the possibility people should assume. You then attempt to divert from the the potential greater severity of the alleged offence by noting that an investigation for sexual assault could be for such a small thing as a kiss or grope. You then propose that the investigation could be more a testing of the alleged victim’s credibility than any wrong doing by Hughes.
And with your “yeah right” you try to claim you were not seeking to raise questions to who is the real victim. That’s a Tui billboard right back at you.
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 11:03 am
noting that an investigation for sexual assault could be for such a small thing as a kiss or grope.
I doubt that the police would search the house for evidence of a kiss or grope. Unless there is something like photographic evidence involved.
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 11:06 am
SPC,
“The related case before the public in the media is what it is and referring to it, in reference to original charges ending up as a conviction on a lesser charge covers the nature of sexual offending ”
No it doesn’t SPC. That particular outcome was a plea bargain and not a representation that the offender was not guilty of the original charge. If he had been tried on the original charge, and found not guilty of that charge, but guilty of another, then your point would have merit, but that is not the case here. Sparing a mother and child the anguish of a trial does not constitute evidence that the actual offence and guilt was less than the original charge.
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 11:16 am
bhudson, you have this fixation about taking inferences from my posts that are not in them and then projecting your version of it back at me, that could in a non virtual reality setting cause all sorts of social problems. Is that the underlying theme you are running with here, a bit long winded, but at least without some sort of personal predatory fixation?
The gamut of offences of a sexual nature is from unwanted touching to something more – I have no idea what the something more might be so left it at that.
If it’s a case of who to believe, all the police can do is check for observable details that corroborate their accounts – that speaks to reliability – all we know so far is the police went to the house and might be interested in the camera evidence at the bars (which can only speak as to the nature of the socialising and whether there was any reason to think that advances could have been expected rather than unwanted). The first account to corroborate is that of the complainant, on that testimony, lacking objective evidence lies the basis for a criminal charge.
Sorry if looking at the story that way, allows people to think there “might” be little in it or only a minor offence to be accountable for, and that offends your political sensibilities in some way.
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 11:18 am
Pete George, I’m not sure they might just be looking for something to corroborate an account – why else would they be seeking bar camera footage? That speaks to whether one party had reason to expect anything was implied earlier. That does not infer a later act of violence but approach and rebuff. But who knows …
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 11:23 am
bhudson do you have reason for your claims about the other case or are you speculating?
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 11:25 am
SPC,
“Is that the underlying theme you are running with here, a bit long winded, but at least without some sort of personal predatory fixation? ”
You are the one who keeps returning and trying in vain to defend the indefensible.
(As to your 11:23am – yes, check out the newspapers or stuff – the plea bargain is what they reported.)
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 11:29 am
But bhudson I thought in playing accuser and jury yourself you were sending up both some of the blog posters here and the misreading of social signals between consenting adults.
You really believe you are the arbiter of what other people mean and how their posts are to be understood? Really?
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 11:30 am
SPC,
Then you have strange logic processing
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 11:37 am
SPC,
“You really believe you are the arbiter of what other people mean and how their posts are to be understood? ”
No. You are responsible for articulating your message properly. If you cannot do that, then people will interpret them differently to your intent. (Mind you, I don’t think I have the intent of the original comment about questioning who is the real victim wrong at all.)
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 11:44 am
Well when I asked you, whether you were just speculating about the other case, you referred me to Stuff.
All Stuff says is that plea bargaining was involved, it makes no reference as to why this was done. About that you are speculating.
I guess you misconstrued my meaning as to what you werre speculating about then …
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
Hey SPC
Vote:just admit that you’ve been done like a dogs dinner and get on with your life.
in hole, stop digging.
March 25th, 2011 at 2:17 pm
The fact that Hughes is being investigated suggests that there is a distinct possibility his behaviour crossed that line.
The fact that Hughes is being investigated suggests he is a Member of Parliament and an easy mark.
The outcome of the investigation will be interesting.
Vote:March 25th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
Oh, piss off Maggie, get a job perhaps.
Vote:March 26th, 2011 at 8:41 am
DPF, you could have finished the head-line at “relieved”. That would have been funnier.
Vote: