Hughes not charged
June 8th, 2011 at 3:01 pm by David FarrarNews just out that the Police have said there is not enough evidence to lay charges against Darren Hughes.
As someone who likes Darren, I am pleased he is not going to face a trial and possible prison over the complaint, just as I was pleased Richard Worth did not have to either.
I am aware though that there was a complainant who it seems had a nasty enough experience that he felt a complaint was warranted. He will not be having such a good day today.
It is a sad that this encounter resulted in Darren being forced out of Parliament. I regarded him as a good MP. If Phil Goff had suspended Darren straight away, then it is quite possible that Darren would have been able to now continue on as an MP, even if not necessarily in the same roles of chief whip and education spokesperson.
June 8th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
So, that fabricator of “news”, Jonathan Marshall, still has his job while the innocent Darren Hughes has lost everything.
I wonder what the egregious Marshall will fabricate to wriggle out of this one?
An interview with the “naked youth” Marshall claimed he was told about by the unnamed staff of an unnamed firm he claims were told about by their unnamed boss?
Or something even more puerile?
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 3:06 pm
This stinks from start to finish.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
Yes – it stinks like bullshit
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 3:10 pm
So be it. Lets hope that there are no more naked youths running around Wellywood in the future.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 3:12 pm
I really don’t understand this. Was the charge fabricated? Will the fabricator be charged? I might not like Labour MPs because of the damage they can do to this country, but I don’t like them to be forced out on false charges either.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 3:12 pm
Perhaps there’s a job for him at the UN too.
Vote:Smoke and fire. I feel for the victim.
June 8th, 2011 at 3:13 pm
If Phil Goff had suspended Darren straight away…
No, if we were less puerile, less juvenile and sniggering in our atitudes to people’s private sex lives, this would never have got off the ground.
I am aware though that there was a complainant who it seems had a nasty enough experience …
Not as nasty as it should be, I for one hope that Hughes names and shames the cretin.
As there has been no crime, there is no reason the Police should not release the false complainant’s name at once.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
It’s a bit hasty to assume there was a false complaint. It may well have been serious but short of criminal. Or the victim may not have wanted to pursue the complaint. We’ll never know unless someone does a bit of digging.
In the meantime, Darren should clear off with Chris. We don’t need him round our kids.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
the victim may not have wanted to pursue the complaint
If there were a victim, there would have been a charge.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
You don’t have to reach the evidential requirements for proof beyond reasonable doubt for there to be a moral case to be made, particularly where, with crimes of this nature, there are often significant evidential hurdles.
Or are we all now convinced David Bain is innocent too?
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
“I really don’t understand this. Was the charge fabricated? Will the fabricator be charged?”
No Berend, you really don’t understand. What the police have decided is that there is not sufficient evidence to prove, to the criminal standard (ie. beyond a reasonable doubt), that a sexual assault occured. That does NOT mean they believe, or there is evidence that, the assault did not occur or that the complaint was fabricated.
Capice?
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
One would like to think the 18 year old will now be charged.
Vote:I see no other way for this to pan out.
June 8th, 2011 at 3:22 pm
Not true Poneke. If you read the words slowly you will see that there was “insufficient evidence” for a charge to stck with the level of certainty requred. If there are inconsistencies in the witness accounts (eg if someone is lying their arse off and it contradicts what others are saying) then it is quite possible that it would come dow to a he said/he said scenario where witness cred has more to do with it than the truth. In that case the Police will likely not proceed with a prosecution.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 3:23 pm
It’s a bit hasty to assume there was a false complaint.
In a statement this afternoon Hughes said he had held strong to the belief that “I had done nothing wrong and that being truthful would see my name cleared”.
“To be falsely accused of something I did not do, let alone a serious crime, has been one of the most challenging experiences in my life.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5116263/No-charges-against-former-Labour-MP-Darren-Hughes
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
BeaB
In the meantime, Darren should clear off with Chris. We don’t need him round our kids.
yep. Much better to leave our kids to the tender mercies of catholic priests and brothers.
Carter and Hughes may be homosexuals, that is not for me to judge, but unlike the catholic clergy, they are not, as you insinuate, paedophiles.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
Hughes will be on a bender tonight!!
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
BTW it does not say – no evidence, or no grounds for prosecution, or it was a fit-up. The implication in fact is that there was some evidence of wrong-doing but not enough for Mr Plod to take a high profile celebrity prosecution with every man and his dog shouting their ill-informed opinions from the sidelines.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 3:29 pm
This is the official word:
That sounds like insufficient evidence, not an uncommon problem in 1v1 situations. It doesn’t seem to prove innocence, guilt, victimness, false accusation or anything other than ” the allegations do not reach the evidential threshold required to bring charges”.
It could be that both parties are hard done by with this non-result.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Now the matter isn’t under investigation, both parties will be able to put their side of the story to the media. I’m interested to find out what Hughes was up to that resulted in a young man fleeing his home naked in the early hours of the morning. Even if the police couldn’t prove that what went on is illegal, it would help voters make an informed decision in November based on the personal standards of Labour MPs.
As a topical analogy, Anthony Weiner probably hasn’t broken the law sending pictures of his penis to members of the public. But the matter itself and the atrocious handling of the matter says a lot about the Democrats.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
The Liars Party pillar of moral rectitude Trev is going to hold a press conference shortly on the matter.
Baited breath would be in order I suggest.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
It must be hard maintaining such low standards BeaB, so I admire your commitment.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
I’m interested to find out what Hughes was up to that resulted in a young man fleeing his home naked in the early hours of the morning
Um, the only basis for this claim is an article by the fabricator Jonathan Marshall, who claimed he spoke to (unnamed) staff at an (unnamed) business who told him their (unnamed) boss told them he saw a naked male near the Mt Victoria tunnel.
If you believe that, or indeed any outlandish claim of Marshall’s, you’d believe Bain is innocent and Ellis is guilty.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
“After this careful consideration, the allegations do not reach the evidential threshold required to bring charges. As a result, no charges will be brought against Mr Hughes.”
That seems a statement made with some misgivings to me. Corroborative evidence was necessary and not available.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
poneke>Um, the only basis for this claim
The vague rumour you mention almost certainly wouldn’t have been sufficient for the police to seek or obtain a search warrant. There must have been some sort of complaint that prompted them to investigate the matter. If the complaint didn’t involve running naked around a Wellington suburb then this is a good time for Hughes to put his side to the story and tell us what happened and why the complainant was confused about events.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
Sure davip, and it would be a good time for the plonker who moaned to put HIS side, too. If he can stand the shame of being outed as a potential perjurer.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
If Hughes is really innocent he must fight to clear his name. Let him bring charges against the 18 year old.
Vote:Poneke, MNIJ and Michaels need closure. Help them Hughesie!
June 8th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
I’m interested to find out what Hughes was up to that resulted in a young man fleeing his home naked in the early hours of the morning.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Perhaps you’d just like to see photos of the naked young man instead ?
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
What about the swiss ball !?
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
“[T]he evidential threshold to bring charges” is, I think, whether there is a prima facie case (or, a case to answer). This is different from the evidential threshold to prove charges – which is a higher standard of “beyond reasonable doubt”. You could probably infer from this that the Police considered that, by himself, the complainant could not give enough evidence to show that there was a case to answer, let alone that there was evidence “beyond reasonable doubt”. But some lawyer with recent experience of criminal law may be able to correct me.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 3:48 pm
Hughes was a car crash waiting to happen and I was critical at the time that Hughes should have received more support. Plus Hughes needed to deal with his issues of drinking and his sexuality. Time spent out of Parliament will give him a chance to front up on both. Once he has done that I am sure his career can resume and he can reoccupy a senior role in the Labour Party in the years ahead. The decision not to prosecute will mean that Hughes can make a fresh start and no doubt be a much better politician.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
I wonder if the police were allowed to use the fact that Hughes has previous form of forcing himself on teens when arriving at their decision not to lay charges.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
I don’t think I can remember seeing such a load of garbage as that spouted by so many on this thread.
There was no fabrication. There was insufficient evidence for police to be confident of gaining a conviction. Happens quite frequently.
What interests me is whether or not Mr Hughes will seek to resume his parliamentary career. I would have thought that might be difficult.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
RightNow>If Hughes is really innocent he must fight to clear his name
He says here (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5116263/No-charges-against-former-Labour-MP-Darren-Hughes) that his name HAS been cleared already. My reading of the Police statement is that they couldn’t find corroborative evidence to back up a case where two parties give different accounts of something that happened in private. I suspect that is common in cases of rape or sexual assault… unless there is some physical evidence of a fight then it comes down to two people arguing about consent.
So I’m with you… Hughes should sue all parties involved for libel and defamation so that the public can hear the evidence and see what a court decides based on probability rather than beyond reasonable doubt.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
Effectively a ‘not proven’ verdict. A ‘not proven’ verdict is the third option available to juries under Scottish law. It is not a very nice verdict to receive – saves you jail but there is no ‘closure’.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
Of course I have no way of knowing whether there was any real substance to the complaint, so can make only a general comment.
And that comment is that anyone found to have made a reckless or malicious complaint against another person ought to be subject to arrest, charged with making a false complaint, and face the same potential penalty as was faced by the person wrongfully accused.
That may, of course, be entirely inappropriate in this instance, but given the fact that public allegations forever tarnish the reputation of the accused, I believe the accused is owed a bit more than “we’ve decided not to charge”, which can mean anything from “we accept the complainant was genuine but our inquiries found insufficient evidence to convince a judge or jury beyond reasonable doubt” to “the complainant has a grudge against the accused and conspired to cause him trouble”.
RightNow, making a false complaint (if indeed it was false) is not a matter that ought to be pursued by the wrongfully accused but by the police, in the interests of upholding the integrity of the justice system. Ignorning for the moment this specific case when was the last time you ever heard that charge being laid… yet how many people are accused, investigated, face consequences as a result of that investigation (loss of job, relationships, community standing) and are then exonerated.
It’s because the view commonly held by police, as expressed to me on several occasions, is that anyone investgated and not charged, or charged and not found guilty, is “lucky”… not, in fact, innocent.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
Do we know when he starts work at the UN?
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
The need for corroborative evidence is not required at all. What is really required is a consistent statement from the alleged victim of criminal activity. It seems that was not the case. Hence no prosecution. Case closed.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
voice of reason>What about the swiss ball !?
I bet the Police were careful to only handle it while wearing gloves.
I used to work in IT security. A colleague and I investigated a case where a public servant had e-mailed a member of the public a close up photo of his penis. We searched his office where he’d placed a poster over the small glass window in the door and found a pile of pornography on his work computer. It was a wish-we-were-wearing-gloves moment.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
Hopefully there’s no incidents at LA International Airport on his way to work at the UN…
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
For me Mr Hughes behavior and judgment on the night in question raises serious doubts on his ability to sit in my parliament and legislate on what constitutes acceptable standards of behavior for me and my country.
Vote:Dover Samuels exhibited similar disqualifying behavior in a hotel lobby a few years back as did Muldoon calling an election and Keith Allen in the bloody street.
If anyone has the uncontrollable urge to get trollied, lose their temper, take other substances and/or behave badly, inappropriately or recklessly then FFS do it somewhere secure.
I am unaware of any suggestion that the young man involved in this matter did anything other than depart from a situation that he was uncomfortable with, sans his apparel, and Hughes has paid a high price for his colossal lack of judgment whether under the influence or stone cold sober.
June 8th, 2011 at 4:04 pm
I bet Howard got the call from New York to stifle this one.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
Bugger.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 4:06 pm
We can assume that Goff heard the facts about what happened and decided he had to go, whatever the political cost and fallout.
Vote:Perhaps we should ask Goff why he felt the situation was irretrievable.
I don’t want our teenage sons in their first weeks at university to be anywhere near such creeps.
We can surely expect some ethical standards form our so-called leaders especially when one of their portfolios is education. Carter was even the Minister of Education and look how he felt he was entitled to behave with our time and money.
As I said before, bugger off to New York with your unpleasant mates, Darren.
June 8th, 2011 at 4:09 pm
Well Hughes has come out and lifted the stakes, he’s saying he’s been falsely accused.
This does seem somewhat at odds with the Police statement.
As Hughes goes on the offensive, that could leave the “accuser” left in a corner and could go either way, including telling his side of the story.
Seeing that Hughes has had bad history with previous similar incidents (when unable to control his liquor), I’d still be a bit weary of Hughes’ statement for the timebeing ie until any facts are known.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
I bet Howard got the call from New York to stifle this one.
Howard retired on April 3.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 4:11 pm
From what I heard Darren didn’t make it to his interview at the UN in New York.
The problem it seems, was that he had no idea how to book a plane ticket using his own money.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
Maybe Hughs just got away with somethign and he should work hard at not attracting any more attention than he already has.
Anyones sex life that includes naked teenagers running down the street in the early hours of the morning isn’t either all that private or entirely wholesome.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
I bet Howard got the call from New York to stifle this one.
Howard retired on April 3.
This happened on the 2nd March, your point is?
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 4:15 pm
“What about the swiss ball !?”
Yes yes…a potential witness…quick somebody interview the swiss ball !
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
I thought it was more DNA in nature.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
Maybe full moon king can shed some light on this sordid little episode..maybe the 18 year old was running from her naked body..maybe SHE tried to jump on the blue vein flute sending the boy running fom the house..eh eh!
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
This happened on the 2nd March, your point is?
Today is June 8. Your point is?
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
Adolf Fiinkensein (1,979) Says:
June 8th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
What interests me is whether or not Mr Hughes will seek to resume his parliamentary career.
You’ll have to wait, he can’t make it back for this coming election, so it would have to be a by-election or 2014.
Most likely he would be a better – and more careful – politician if he does eventually make a comeback.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
This happened on the 2nd March, your point is?
Today is June 8. Your point is?
Broad was still Commissioner when this happened.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
starboard, that sort of speculation without any foundation is despicable.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
aw geez Pete wheres ya SOH..
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
The naked teenager story is without foundation in my view. But Hughes should just say he is glad it is all over. There are lessons to be learned and he will learn them. The fact is, he placed himself in a very vulnerable position and hopefully he has learned that lesson.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Broad was still Commissioner when this happened.
Ah, so it was the police commissioner who was riding the Swiss Ball when Naked Man fled down Moxham Ave past Jonathan Marshall’s Secret Witness?
It all makes sense now.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 4:41 pm
this sordid episode has not been cleared up and how on earth can he really expect to be an MP again .. oh, that’s right, he is a Labour Party member (shouldn’t mention member really) where poor behaviour is accepted, even encouraged.
Vote:What really gets me is that Hughes wants to move on but still serve his community .. why not just get a real job in the real world Darren??
June 8th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
poneke>Jonathan Marshall’s Secret Witness
Patrick Gower’s witness as well:
“3 News has spoken to two witnesses who travel along the main road for business about 5am every day; it’s close to Mr Hughes’ home and they believe that on the morning in question they saw a man matching the student’s description, standing completely naked. They didn’t want to appear on camera but provided 3 News with a statement saying: “He was standing there with one hand over his private parts and the other hand with his thumb out, hitch-hiking. I thought, ‘oh boy, the husband’s come home and it’s a quick exit’.” The second witness remembers: “It was O-Week (University orientation week) so I thought it must have been a practical joke and someone had stolen his clothes.” Moments later the pair saw a police car going the other way so didn’t stop to assist the young man.”
Maybe this is a conspiracy among journalists to smear a blameless Labour MP?
http://www.3news.co.nz/Hughes-saga-Witnesses-saw-naked-man-hitchhiking/tabid/419/articleID/204086/Default.aspx
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 4:48 pm
If there were a victim, there would have been a charge.
Do you apply that same logic to women who have been raped where a charge does not eventuate?
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
does anyone believe a handsome man like hughes would have to force himself on someone?
highly doubtful imho
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 4:53 pm
the stupidity runs rampant in this thread
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Ah, so it was the police commissioner who was riding the Swiss Ball when Naked Man fled down Moxham Ave past Jonathan Marshall’s Secret Witness?
It all makes sense now.
With Broad’s past sordid history in the Dunedin police force it would not surprise me.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
Thanks BeaB for the worst comment of the day:
In the meantime, Darren should clear off with Chris. We don’t need him round our kids.
Yeah, because them gays is dangerous. My lands.
BeaB, you are a bigot.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Oh and congratulations to everyone here who thinks insufficient evidence to gain a verdict beyond reasonable doubt = the victim was lying. I’ll look forward to seeing you on a jury, or, even better, in the prosecution’s chair.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Do you apply that same logic to women who have been raped where a charge does not eventuate?
The standard police procedure is for a charge to be laid on the basis of an allegation and let the jury decide.
For a charge not to be laid after an allegation, the allegation must be implausible indeed.
The police do not require corroboration of any kind to lay charges — many charges are laid each year with no physical evidence, with no corroborating witnesses, with no evidence at all except the allegations of the person making the allegations. Many people are convicted each year on such uncorroborated evidence.
For no charge to be laid in this case, the allegation must be implausible indeed.
I note Hughes has claimed the allegations are “false” — strong words indeed when Hughes knows the complainant is well known to the media, who will be at his door waving their chequebooks this very minute asking him — nay, promising to pay him very large sums of money — to publicise his complaints against Hughes and respond to Hughes’s claim that the allegations are false.
Hell, the lad will be on Close Up tonight, or if not, in another Jonathan Marshall “exclusive” in the SST on Sunday, or, if neither of those have a big enough chequebook, in next week’s Woman’s Day, which, if it doesn’t have the complainant, will certainly have Hughes on its cover.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
trueblue (21) Says:
June 8th, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Touche” Red B…
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
It seems to me that Hughes (- being a well known poof about whom there are quite a few stories about him making what could be called a brutal approach to his – shall we say victims -) has a life style that while legal is regarded by the vast majority of people as unusual at best, and downright wrong and evil at worst.
He knows this, and someone in his position with his lifestyle will always become news. After all, he has spent much of his MP life trying to make mountains out of the opposing parties molehills .
He should have known that he was always in line for being on page 1 should his ‘approaches’ been regarded by his ‘target’ as unwelcome.
I have no sympathy for him – he knew what would be the result should there be a complaint.
At least they never called him Tinkerbell in the house…………………..
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 5:10 pm
It was all false, Hughes knew it was false and there wasn’t the slightest shred of evidence against him, yet he resigned, because any totally baseless and false claim without evidence can bring down an MP. Feels like a Tui ad.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
You were there then KiwiGreg?
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Lack of evidence means just that. The only people who (might given alcohol) know what happened are those who were there. And again, given alcohol, the possibility of confusion could be guessed at.
I still regard Goff’s (mis) handling of this matter as appalling and the key reason that Hughes lost his job. Had Goff front footed it, placed Hughes on gardening leave (as any other employee would be) until police investigation completed then Hughes might have stood a chance. I have no truck for Labour obviously but I do think Hughes was treated inequitably and that was largely the fault of Goff.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
The standard police procedure is for a charge to be laid on the basis of an allegation and let the jury decide.
Its quite obviously not or Hughes case would have followed the same path wouldn’t you think?
The police do not require corroboration of any kind to lay charges — many charges are laid each year with no physical evidence, with no corroborating witnesses, with no evidence at all except the allegations of the person making the allegations. Many people are convicted each year on such uncorroborated evidence.
Then why didn’t that happen now? Different rules for different people perhaps?
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
@ Inventory of course I wasn’t, I’m too old and ugly
. I’m still glad the smug self-entitled shit is gone though.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
Barry, I don’t give two shits what people do with their private lives as long as it doesn’t break the law and they pay their tax. Please exclude me from your “vast majority” who apparently have a problem from homosexuality.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
By a strange coincidence Annette KING was out of communication in the South Island and that is why it befell Trev MALLARD to re-act for Labour.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Hughes seems like a nice guy dealing with crippling guilt and self-loathing about his sexuality. I hope his departure from the public spotlight gives him some breathing space to accept himself for who he is.
That said, I’m glad he’s gone from Parliament because he’s a poster-boy for the Totally Unqualified To Do Anything Brigade and doesn’t deserve the salary that my taxes paid him.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 5:27 pm
@ GPT1 – so as an act of legal charity, are you going to contact Hughes and offer to represent him in a constructive dismissal suit against Goff?
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 5:27 pm
If I was raped by a prominent male politician (especially if I’d been out drinking excessively with him that night), in an event that resulted in a massive media circus, I think I would be keen to put the event behind me and would not pursue charges.
Well, now I’m older I might have the confidence, but as an 18 year old I’d have just buried it.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Whoa! Nothing to charge him over, but let’s lynch him anyway.
You’re tuned to Kiwiblog, folks. Where people we don’t like are always guilty, and all homosexuals are pedophiles.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 5:32 pm
So Tristanb – you are accusing him of rape now ?
Vote:Christ – this thread is well out of hand.
June 8th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
I am just pleased he no longer graces the halls of power. Simple as that.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
SHG>That said, I’m glad he’s gone from Parliament because he’s a poster-boy for the Totally Unqualified To Do Anything Brigade and doesn’t deserve the salary that my taxes paid him.
He was an MP for nearly 9 years, meaning he was paid around $1.2million 2011-vintage dollars. In return he was Minister of Statistics for a couple of years, and a person who has a record of unwanted sexual advances after drinking. I don’t see why some people think he was a good MP, a good bloke, a person that Jacinda Ardern would want to holiday with, or someone who we’d want back in parliament again. Are we that desperate for parliamentarians that we need to hang on to sexually abusive drunks with a slim record of achievement? It’s not like we’re France where half the population thinks that rape is actually “seduction” and something to be proud of.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Just to remind everyone where your tax money goes – or has been going – it should be remembered that one of the other great waste-of-times – chris Carter (who surely was the bottom of the pit as far as MP’s goes and is also a member of the queer brigade ) was this week employeed by the worlds greatest money wasting organisation – UN – to work for the Billious Bitch in N.Y.
And if you want to look ahead – then youll all no doubt thank Finlayson (another member of the ranbow brigade) for his efforts with the foreshore etc Act. In a year or two when various Iwi do deals direct with Govt for control of access to beaches youll all have to think again about this bill. I hope none of you have high value beach front houses – because if youre located where the Iwi wants action – then youve just done your dough.
The 21st century has started in NZ with the self-lovers having an influence in government way beyond their right.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
maybe he should consult with Andrew Little about his unfair dismissal I2
Vote:if he still wants to serve his community and country, maybe he should join the army
June 8th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Beab “I don’t want our teenage sons in their first weeks at university to be anywhere near such creeps”
So Beab – you’ve raised teenagers who have been so protected from the outside world that they will instantly contract “homo-sm” if they pass within 3 metres of a gay.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 5:44 pm
It was a hypothetical situation. It’s called empathising with the complainant.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 5:44 pm
Wo-hoo, da duck’s spinning the Labour’s crisis-communications plan. Apparently this is all the fault of the media, he says!
Oh oh, do I see another Labour trainwreck departing the station for an outing…
And we never ask for it, but they keep wanting to come…
Firstly it’s not wise to attack the “media” …
And seeing Mallard’s dissed supporting Claire and her rugby jersey incident yesterday, is he a “lone duck” so to speak, by drawing the short straw to front foot Hughes defence, while she just has to sit back and watch the heat getting turned up by the “media” on da duck in due course?
Seeing Mallard and truth are incompatible, it’s gonna be another interesting journey for Labour again
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
MAN this thread delivers! It’s almost like reading the standard.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
… and a tsunami of homophobia engulfs us!
Some of you guys make me want to puke. Especially you, BeaB. You are among the vilest of creatures to creepeth upon this earth.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
Nothing could possibly be almost like “The Standard”, when they are the pits
(The Standard = Labour = Another mis-truth as truth)!
As in like sewer pits, eh Toad et al
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 5:56 pm
toad>Some of you guys make me want to puke. Especially you, BeaB. You are among the vilest of creatures to creepeth upon this earth.
Some of the other vilest creatures are the Labour MPs who shout out “Tinkerbell” at Chris Finlayson in parliament. But the Greens have announced that Labour are their preferred coalition partners without any condemnation of their abusive homophobia.
Did you go to the recent Greens conference? If so, did you raise the Labour vile homophobia issue with your fellow members?
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
homos are bad toad..its dirty , disgusting, unnatural and to be discouraged.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
We should not waste our time on this nonsense.
Vote:Politicians are a microcosim of NZ even though they purport to be an elite band “upholding community standards”.
Down the years, before and since Larnarch, to Shand, Brooks, Moyle, Allen( ? medical), Kirk to …….. Hughes et al….. MPs have proved no better or worse than the rest of the community.
But there seems to be a double standard here. If the complainant had been female, charges (assuming she was naked in the street) would have been laid. Do I smell forged art or election spending fraud of $860,000 odd ?????????????
June 8th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
@niggly 5:49 pm
Dunno how I got dragged into a comment about The Standard – apart from the fact that I comment there almost as frequently as I comment here.
But not quite as much, because some of you guys here give me more ammunition.
If you want to check out my homes, they are here and here.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 6:05 pm
@starboard 5:57 pm
Any reason for that assertion, starboard? Like something that can be argued on a factual basis, rather than bigoted prejudice that can’t be argued with but only mocked or despised?
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Just a double-up reply in one post toad, I wasn’t suggesting you compare (like no-one could, they – The Standard – are unique, thankfully)
Like this, “Do I smell forged art or election spending fraud of $860,000 odd ?????????????”
Jeez, don’t say that, it sounds like it’s gonna be another chapter in a book that someone ought to write on the means to an end antics number 3643728 of the Labour party!
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 6:08 pm
toad>If you want to check out my homes, they are here and here.
Just checked them out. It seems as if dress standards for MPs is the key issue for Greens at the moment. And it seems that Keith Locke has visited Cuba recently. Do you know if he raised human rights with them? If I was a political prisoner in a Cuban jail subject to torture then I’d be pissed off if a visiting foreign MP were chatting about climate change with my oppressors and ignoring my plight.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/cuba
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
Just sayin toady..factual statement. You tell me why taking it up the freckle is presumed to be natural and normal . Whats worse, you lot try and ram it down our throats as normal. Well I’ll give you the news pal..it aint, and never will be.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 6:18 pm
LOL WHAT?
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
Right on starboard. If it had been a shorn sheep running up Moxham Ave. no one would have worried.
Shit I hate deviants!
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 6:22 pm
Starboard – I’m a man. my partner is a woman. She likes it “up the freckle” once in a while.
Please, please tell me you approve? Your opinions and value judgments mean the world to me.
Please?
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
@starboard 6:11 pm
I’m not trying to ram anything down anyone’s throats, starboard. That’s rape, in case you hadn’t noticed.
And you seem to be unaware that lots of straight people enjoy anal sex. And lots of queers don’t.
What is wrong with anyone enjoying the consensual sexual experiences that they enjoy, and not engaging in the ones they do not?
If you don’t like fucking up the arse, then don’t do it. But who are you to demand that someone who does enjoy it should not do it with someone else who enjoys it? What has it got to do with you, or anyone other than those engaged?
Funny thing is that as self-described by your libertarian blogname, I thought you would be completely against any state intervention in people’s consensual sexual activity.
But you don’t come across as a libertarian – just a nasty homophobic bigot.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 6:27 pm
Since the rapture last weekend toad is a bit of a gun on the “Dirty Sanchez” RRM.
Ask him about it. Just if you and the missus are interested of course.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
@Johnboy 6:27 pm
Disgusting! As usual.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
Sorry if I have offended you toad. I would never try to do that intentionally.
Its just that I realise you guys in the Greens are the confirmed political experts in anal sex as Labour have been screwing your arses since the glorious Saint Rod set you adrift on the seas of MMP.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 6:44 pm
Johnboy – “The Liars Party pillar of moral rectitude Trev is going to hold a press conference shortly on the matter.”
Why Mallard instead of Goff?
Vote:I missed the start of the item on TV so don’t know if they explained the Party Leader’s non-show, or is Mallard, as campaign manager, going to now lead Labour until the Election?
June 8th, 2011 at 6:47 pm
Why Mallard instead of Goff?
The ignorance on show here is epitomised by this delicious bit of vacancy.
Because Goff’s at his son’s wedding, you git.
As much of the troll farm have already abused him for attending.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 6:48 pm
So the accused is officially innocent of anything – except in the eyes of some people posting here, who think he must have done something.
And the accuser is officially neither victim nor fabricator – except in the eyes of the public, whichever side they want to believe. Which is maybe based on their political preferences rather than any actual facts.
No charges. Just the joys of the Court of Public Opinion.
Toad, I don’t get what your homes have to do with anything – any more than Cuba, or the sexuality of -well, anyone.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 6:48 pm
Of course Annette isn’t at the Goff wedding. She is just unavailable.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 6:57 pm
This shows the value of being in the Labour party and NOT threatening to stand as an independent.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 6:57 pm
Thanks, poneke, for the information.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
“News just out that the Police have said there is not enough evidence to lay charges against Darren Hughes.”
So does this mean that in fact Darren is not gay?
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
No that is of course not the case but a disproportionate number of them are depending on your definition of are paedophile.
I risk more demerit point for speaking the truth but it appears on KB it is okay to point out the disproportionate numbers of Maori behaving badly but not so for homosexuals.
I am referring to homosexuals targeting adolescents either under the age of consent or just over.
This is a gross miscarriage of justice. There is not way this would have happened it the complainant was female.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
I hope you are not too upset that Mr. Wellington has put you in your place Yvette. C’est la guerre.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 7:01 pm
nah Im on the turps tonight..carry on.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 7:01 pm
It’s obviously the Maori homosexuals who are the greatest worry then Chuck.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 7:06 pm
At least the police didn’t say “not in the public interest”
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 7:09 pm
I accept there was insufficent evidence not to charge Hughes, though that is hardly an exoneration.
It still puzzles me though. Why would a young man run naked and highly distressed from the house of the Deputy leader of the Labour Party, with Hughes chasing after him also distressed?
I don’t want to accuse Hughes of anything, but it does seem very odd and should be explained by Hughes publicly to help clear the air.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 7:22 pm
Can’t wait to see Hughes/Mallard/whomever spin that one GP (for a start, how to explain away innocently the swiss ball, being on a mid-week alcohol bender, the age difference, authority etc)?
As someone else said Hughes should’ve STFU
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
So…if you are a Labour MP you can make unwanted sexual advances toward an 18 year old just as long as both the MP and the victim (and there is a victim here and that victim is NOT Hughes) are male.
As somebody else said, had the person laying the charges been a female Hughes would be facing charges in court.
I wonder how many Labour party thugs and supporters visited the victim and his family, I wonder how many ‘convinced him’ that it might be best if Hughes got away with it.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 7:35 pm
I don’t like any sex abusers or predatory creeps – male, female, homo or hetero. Neither do I like the suggestion that this boy must be telling lies. That’s why women have always been reluctant to press charges because of what THEY will suffer again.
Vote:I won’t defend any adult who gets drunk and abuses someone or takes advantage of someone who is drunk, especially a youngster.
I can quite see how that makes me a bigot but I am very content with my kind of bigotry.
And I still want to know why Goff thought what he heard was so serious Hughes had to go. And why didn’t Annette King speak up?
June 8th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
BeaB – I agree with the sentiment of your recent posts.
It seems one or two others have twisted some of your comments to their own extreme interpretation and are trying to wack you back with them.
At the end of the day Hughes appeared to abuse his position over this teenager (whether sex was legal or not), and frankly anyone trying to spin that away are somewhat twisted in their thinking.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Dang edit … I meant as in whether sex was legal or not, which it is but that’s no excuse for Hughes to say he’s done nothing wrong.
Hughes’ judgement was found lacking, again. Not good enough for a Parliamentary come back in my opinion!
(But watch the spin machine spin this for a come back …. trainwreck anyone?)
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 7:57 pm
They left it to poor old worn out Trev to give the official party line response. Hell he’s gotten old fast. Grey hair, balding, on crutches. The man is a spent force. Must have been all those affairs, punch ups and aggressive attitude towards cars when he’s on his bike. And he still sounds like Sylvester.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 8:01 pm
I am sure I will be called all sorts of things for this, but in my opinion this whole saga begs the question of what a former minister of the crown was doing that led to a naked 18 year old running from his house at all hours of the night.
While making false accusations should be punished accordingly it shows very poor political judgment on Hughes’ part and Parliament will be all the better in having one less smug totalitarian wanker with no life experience in it.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
@niggly – agreed. There are commenters here who foam out of one side of their mouth about anyone declaring any opinion on the predilections of others, while simultaneously insisting that everyone complies with their life parameters (light bulbs, tuck shop, shower pressure etc). There’s a term for that. Escapes me just now …
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 8:21 pm
It seems the Labour Party timetable on the list selection was not operating the same timetable as the Police over the investigation. The Labour Party was between a rock and a hard place. Supposing they gave Hughes a list slot but then the Police laid charges. Or held up the list process until Hughes was cleared – I don’t think so. So Hughes had to go – he is young providing the incident fades by 2014 Hughes can even come back or sooner. Maybe if Labour go into opposition Annette King will resign from Parliament and Hughes will get the nomination in a by-election. That deal has probably been done already, but no-body is saying much. Hughes is held in wide regard in the Labour Party. He will be back.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
@nickb 8:01 pm
Sixteen is the age of consent. It is lawful for a 70 year old to fuck a 16 year old as long as it is consensual. You may not like that law, but it is the law.
I get the impression from reports I have read (and they may be wrong) that Darren Hughes was a bit fucked up about his sexuality. And, if that were the case, he should have got more support from his colleagues in Labour to deal with that.
But whatever you think of his politics, I think he had great political skills. The “congratulatory motion” that Hughes and Mallard did on Steven Joyce finally getting his degree was extraordinarily clever.
Whatever you may think of his politics, and as a Green I’m not too enthralled with any Labour politician, I think Hughes’ departure from Parliament leave it poorer for talent.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 8:29 pm
Oh God… Full moon King swapped out for [deleted to avoid demerits] Hughes in my electorate. Outstanding. Not.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 8:32 pm
Saaaaaaaayyyyyy, hang on a moment ….
Whatever the situation, one aspect is a known and indisputable fact: Hughes was totally pissed off his face. Again. (It was front page news, the day after etc).
So just for a moment, nevermind today’s outcome …
What HAS Hughes ever done to rehabilitate his drinking problem?
Did he do something about it? If not, why not?
And you want him back in Parliament, Toad? Un-reformed and un-repentant?
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 8:48 pm
Toad: Some of you guys make me want to puke. Especially you, BeaB. You are among the vilest of creatures to creepeth upon this earth.
This, from someone who gets sexually excited while viewing pictures of Khmer Rouge atrocities.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 8:49 pm
toad>The “congratulatory motion” that Hughes and Mallard did on Steven Joyce finally getting his degree was extraordinarily clever.
Was it? I read about half before I gave up and all I could see were a couple of people smirking at someone’s grades. Darren Hughes might have better grades than Steven Joyce and want to gloat about it. But Steven Joyce is a senior government minister while Darren Hughes has resigned from parliament after a sexual assault scandal, so Joyce is the winner overall.
Getting away from homophobia for a moment… Hughes and Jacinda Ardern were on holiday with Paul Henry recently. That’s the Paul Henry who doesn’t think people who are ethnically Indian can be real NZers. Is associating with a racist further evidence of Hughes’ bad judgement? What about Jacinda Ardern? How can the Greens consider joining a coalition with a party who has an MP who thinks that racism is no big deal, as long as she has somewhere to stay over a long weekend?
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
@niggly 8:32 pm
I don’t have a problem with people getting pissed. I do it myself quite frequently. The problem is when it impinges on people’s ability to do their job or when they lose control and become abusive to others, be they their partners or someone they are attempting to pick up in a bar.
I guess the bar for an MP is higher than for the rest of us, although I don’t think it should be. It is a bit sad that when you become a public figure you are suddenly expected to adhere to a different standard of behaviour from the guy or girl next door who are rooting their arses off with whomever they (lawfully) choose.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 8:55 pm
There are problems with E coli in Europe at the present time….
Why should we bother about ” men ” that like to romp ( or should that be RUMP ) around in it ??
Darren Hughes is IMHO as queer as a clock work orange..
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 8:56 pm
I agree. And this coming from a self-confessed fundermentalist Christian too. Sheeesh..!
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 9:17 pm
Handsome? What planet are you on?
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 9:22 pm
Toad sez:
If you don’t think that the bar for an MP should be higher than the rest of us, does that mean you also don’t agree with the Green Party rhetoric (and Russell and Metiria in particular) always calling for greater scrutiny of MP’s expenses, travel claims etc? Seems it’s ok to raise the bar for MP’s in that situation.
Always exceptions, eh?
Looks like krazykiwi at 8.16 is onto something, that “term” escapes me too, what was it again? I think the first letter may start with a capital H?
As for the law allowing 70 year old’s to root 16 year old’s – plueeze don’t go there …. it’s not a good look!
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 9:35 pm
@niggly – some people geuniely believe that morality is given it’s borders by the law, ergo if it’s legal it’s moral. Hughes may well believe this, as might toad. Problem is when out innate sense of right and wrong disagrees with the law, as might have been the case with concentration camp managers.. or you and I confronting that 70 year old
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 9:36 pm
The problem is when it impinges on people’s ability to do their job or when they lose control and become abusive to others, be they their partners or someone they are attempting to pick up in a bar.
Indeed it is toad. So why is it when an 18 year old male who had a girlfriend, felt a need to escape without his clothes from a house which contained a 34 year-old man whom just hours before he was laughing with and looking up to, from all accounts? Don’t you think something might have happened in that house?
Or not really, it was all just a media beat-up?
It was interesting wasn’t it that the Liarbore caucus came out strongly over the weekend with their support. I mean, they hadn’t before, wonder why they did that then? Almost as if they already knew what the result was going to be and they were just planting the seed, so all the morons when they heard the news today remembered that and recalled the recently impression that Liarbore had always stood solidly behind their colleague, all along.
Wasn’t that convenient.
Also interesting that Hughes is saying he is completely innocent. I hope this is a step too far for him. I’d like nothing better for “the son that Hulun never had” to never darken the corridors of Parliament again. I’d like even better were the “daughter” to do the same, but sadly, that won’t happen for quite awhile yet, I fear.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 9:39 pm
Toad ..
It may not look good to you 70 year olds rooting 16 year olds..
It is legal..
And this old man is allowed to dream
)
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 9:47 pm
adam2314
It is legal…
Dirty old Dover and the babysitter proved that, OK he wasn’t 70 but the case ended splitting hairs over the actual day of the girls birthday vs the date of the deed. Labour party, loyal – exonerated. But hey at least it made it to court, a rare thing where politicians are involved.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 9:48 pm
News release just in from the Green Party!????
Green Party & Toad would like to remind the good citizens of Aotearoa that it is perfectly legal for 70 year old’s to root 16 year old’s!
Green Party & Toad thus say what’s the biggee if a 34 year old tries it on with an 18 year old? The age of consent is 16 – no law has been broken etc etc!
Green Party & Toad say, if anyone is feeling harassed and intimidated, when asking the newsagents for a “dirty” magazine containing 70 year old’s rooting 16 year old’s, feel free to ring your local branch of the Green Party for solidarity and support! Remember kids at home – this is all ok, it’s not against the law!
Gooo Greens!
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 9:56 pm
niggly
Perhaps you could become PM and get your party to define a new law, perhaps an age of consent could be calculated based on the males age, or would you chose the females age. Exactly what moral code are you suggesting the law should
Vote:accommodateenforce?June 8th, 2011 at 9:58 pm
burt..
Thank you for the back up..
I will
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 10:01 pm
niggly
Oh, and when I’m 70… I’ll be saying (if i remember anything by then) a silent ‘f-you niggly, and your rules!’ if I ever get the chance with an 18 year old.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 10:04 pm
Burt – I’m ok with the law (and I have no problem with what you wish to do, even if it is in “winning Lotto” odds territory
).
But I would say that it’s not a good example for Toad to use in this debate.
Because although Toad and perhaps the Greens will use it to defend Hughes, it leaves them open to hypocrisy eg the newsagent scenario above. I bet ya if someone insisted on mags and the like being stocked, the Greens would in actuality call such people perverts. Toad can’t have it both ways …. again ….. and again etc.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
Isn’t it odd that Red Alert doesn’t have a post on Hughes’ complete and utter exoneration nay triumph over injustice and adversity and injustice and false accusation and injustice and lies and injustice and everything? How come they’re not talking about it nay crowing from the rooftops that Darren, their “extremely talented” colleague (as per Mallard tonight on the TV News) is completely and utterly innocent of anything and everything in everyway whatsoever?
I mean, this isn’t like Liarbore at all, is it.
Liarbore, particularly in this cyclical downturn for them which seems to be going on forever and ever, needs a fillup, and one woulda thought, Darren the poor downtrodden unjustly accused victim of such a twemendous media beat-up would be the perfect answer. But they’re completely and utterly silent.
Perhaps they’re just busy organising all the moderators in advance, so they can avoid further injustice when they cautiously dip their toe into the water. Or perhaps they just don’t want to divert the message seeing as how they have so many positive things on the go at the mo.
P.S. Not one word, not one word, about the victim, from any of them, throughout all of this. Disgusting creatures, aren’t they.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 10:07 pm
burt.
Altziemers is already kicking in
(
I wanted to say that I will insist that they have their drivers licence to prove they are rootable.
Yeah right ..
)
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 10:11 pm
Ok peeps, look for the young rising star in Labour in about 3 years…. Has anybody asked the obvious question; Was it James Sleep? His early blog behaviour would suggest he would be likely to suddenly run away having been stripped of any dignity he thought he had.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 10:13 pm
reid: Maybe that’s cos Labour are on cue getting trashed tonight celebrating Hughes’ victory (and don’t have time?) Priorities, priorities
Or maybe cos it’s the perfect calm before the impending media storm in due course, seeing that Mallard has blamed the media and now the media will go looking for the dirt now there won’t be a court case and their name has been “tarnished” by Labour?
Or maybe Claire Curren has kicked Mallard in the proverbial nuts to prevent him posting anything stupid?
They seem to have a love-hate relationship those two!
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 10:14 pm
He had a young man flee his house naked in the middle of the night?
Vote:Why?
He was fortunate that press referred to the complainant as an 18 yr old man not a youth as they usually do but to say he was completely innocent may come back to bite him.
Is there a chance the Police should prosecute the 18 yr old man if he gave false evidence or changed his story or will the media dig deeper and will we find out the truth even if it is in a play at downstage?.
June 8th, 2011 at 10:16 pm
It’s easy to forget how easily our heads were turned and how desperately we wanted to be grown-up and sophisticated when we started university. Hughes should have been aware of this and shown some responsibility when he took that boy back to his boarding house.
I still want to know what frightened Goff so much that Hughes had to go.
Is it a coincidence that the police made this announcement when Goff was out of the country for a long-planned event?
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 10:17 pm
No toad there is nothing sad about holding an elected representative to a reasonable standard of behaviour.
In fact it is entirely appropriate that someone who puts themselves before the public and invites them to vote for him or her as a “leader” should be held to account for leaderly behaviours.
Getting pissed and hitting on 18 year olds is not “leaderly behaviour” in my or anyone elses book. Darren Hughes the private individual can make as many mistakes as he likes (inside the law) as he struggles with his demons.
Darren Hughes the public figure, the senior labour party member, the former Minister of the Crown, the representative of the people. That Darren Hughes is absolutely accountable for demonstrating appropriate behaviour. Alcoholism is sadly not uncommon in public figures. But lets be honest here. Getting hammered, and having naked 18 year olds fleeing from your house does not come even close to demonstrating appropriate behaviour.
Likewise Dazza, insufficient evidence to prosecute does not equal exoneration. D. Hughes esq, former politician and community “leader” you have not been “cleared”, and lying about that too just demonstrates the character flaws that put you in this situation.
In simple terms, man up. Apologise to your “victim” and to your constituents, then shut the fuck up and get a proper job and make something of your life. Politics is over to you, you have failed the character test.
To all your fellow travellers, DPF included, Toad, Mallard and the sycophants of the left. Is this sort of scandal really what you regard as appropriate from an elected member of Parliament? I mean really? Perhaps NZ is really just the banana republic we have feared all along.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 10:21 pm
Shit, what a great idea!
After all if it’s good enough for the goose to give creative funding towards a play mocking Don Brash and his stolen emails, then maybe it’s good for the gander to dish out some funding for a play dedicated to Hughes & his swiss ball?
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 10:29 pm
NZ has become a banana republic, thanks to the antics of Labour. Judging by Labour’s (and attack dog Union eg CTU) pamplets claiming National don’t have a f***ing clue nor are doing anything to counter the economic crisis, and instead release distorted claims to back up their politiking for the economically illiterate, let Labour can’t articulate a viable economic alternative demonstrates to me that Labour would hasten NZ’s plunge into becoming a banana republic! We’ve just witnessed Clark and Cullen squander NZ’s economic boom times with economic timebombs that are coming home to roost!
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 10:29 pm
Now playing at Downstage : Swiss Roll – The day the cream went sour.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 10:51 pm
niggly possibly all three.
It’s easy to forget how easily our heads were turned and how desperately we wanted to be grown-up and sophisticated when we started university. Hughes should have been aware of this and shown some responsibility when he took that boy back to his boarding house.
Hughes can’t failed to have known this attitude in his victim BeaB. He was not only 34 years old, he was by all accounts a very capable and hard-working MP and politics is one of the most difficult jobs in the world, to be good at. Hughes is clearly a very capable, astute, intelligent man. Sometimes they make the best predators when they lack empathy and sometimes they make the best benefactors when they don’t.
If the young man just wound up back at his place and bunked down on the sofa and Hughes gave him a lift back to town in the morning, which is what you’d expect would have happened, happened, this wouldn’t have happened. That’s what I expect should have happened, given who Hughes was, and the age and innocence of this young man. But clearly, it didn’t. Clearly, from the reported FACTS, something happened to make an 18 year old freak out of his young mind, and what might that have been?
What else could it have been but someone you didn’t think was like that, to make a serious advance, not a tentative: “you interested? No? OK” sort of advance but something else, something you didn’t want, weren’t expecting, didn’t know how to handle, since you were miles from home and had no-where else to run.
Don’t know if gay people -or- P.C. people understand this, but homosexual rape is the absolute worst crime you could commit against someone who is straight. As a straight guy, I don’t really mind if a group of ladies wants to take advantage of me, but I’m fucked if I’m ever going to let a bum-bandit through my back door. I don’t give a fuck if someone thinks that’s homophobic, I’m just not interested. I’ve noticed over the years most straight male friends of mines have this attitude. It’s not a phobia, it’s a disgust at the homosexual act. This is what straight guys aren’t allowed to enuciate lest we offend our gay brethren but fuck it, it’s there, it’s real and it’s the only thing I can think of that would have got me to do what that guy did, when I was 18.
Maybe an adult would have grabbed their mobile and run into the bathroom and locked the door, or something. This poor young man clearly was panicked, wasn’t thinking, was frightened out of his young mind. By something.
Yet Hughes says, he’s completely innocent. And Liarbore are saying, he is as well.
Fine.
So what made that young man do what he did. Something happened. That’s a fact. Onus is on those guys to explain it, is my attitude. Onus is not on the victim to explain it. Pretending it never happened: i.e. “I’m completely innocent” is not acceptable.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 10:53 pm
well said nigel.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
reid too.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 11:04 pm
toad>It is lawful for a 70 year old to fuck a 16 year old as long as it is consensual.
Right on cue, Hugh Hefner crops up…
http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/celebrities/5116742/Hugh-Hefner-takes-on-the-ageists
In most of the world he is regarded as a sad old man and ridiculed. But he’d be quite happy as a member of the Green or Labour parties where the only measure of acceptability is whether something is legal or not. And even illegal things are acceptable as long as the police can’t find corroborating evidence.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 11:04 pm
I’m sure there’s a perfectly innocent and simple explanation:
After a night discussing politics at a restaurant with the interesting Hughes, the teenager comes around to meet his hero Annette King. During a game of scrabble Annette leaves the room and the teen, nervous in the presence of such political might, spills his grape juice down his shirt and trousers.
He doesn’t want to be embarrassed in front of Annette, so he asks to borrow one of Darren’s shirts. The teenager goes to the laundry to soak his clothes, and notices that the wine has gone through the trousers onto his expensive underwear. Being a poor student, he doesn’t want these stained. So quickly rips them off and leaves them to soak – he’d be putting on a pair of Hughes’s pants anyway, and wouldn’t want the stain to run onto these.
But then he hears a noise. It’s King, walking to the bathroom. Not wanting to be caught naked in her laundry, the teen slips out the creaky door into the garden. But blast it, the door locks on him. Stark naked in the cold, he must make it around to the side of the house to attract attention and get help. He taps on the window, but unfortunately this disturbs the neighbour’s dog, who squeezes under a fence and starts to chase the poor boy.
Flipping over the fence, running for his life from the neighbour’s Chow Chow, the teen becomes disoriented – it must have been that one beer each that he and Darren had. “If only Labour hadn’t lowered the drinking age!” he regrets.
As he falls off the fence he knocks his head on a stepping stone, and develops amnesia. He doesn’t know where he is, he doesn’t remember why he’s in this neighbourhood, he just knows he has to get home. After a long journey, hiding and ducking between cover, he is spotted by the police. Gradually his memory returns, but it’s patchy. “Darren, Darren Hughes” he tells the police. The police incorrectly assume this is a sexual assault, but this is all cleared up after some prompting from the Labour government to “press charges or else”.
Hopefully this brief explanation answers any queries that right-wing mischief makers have about this situation.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 11:52 pm
tristanb… A more likely story is that Hughes and the Student spent the evening drinking. Hughes discovered that the Student was straight but, since the earlier incident with the ACT staffer, he has come to realise that you can be just friends with a straight bloke and not have to start waving your cock around. Anyway, they discover that they have a mutual interest in art and Hughes invites the student back around to King’s house so that Hughes can sketch the student naked. Like Kate Winslet in Titanic, but without Celine Dion singing.
The sketching goes well. Hughes turns out to be as accomplished at drawing as he was as Minister of Statistics. But things start going wrong when Annette King arrives home. She has been out for the evening dining with Parekura Horomia and found herself quite turned on. However she remembers that Horomia is married and that sex with a colleague is unethical, even if it is just a quickie around the back of the KFC. Unfortunately her flat mate is a bloke and gay and so she is resigned to going to bed horny and frustrated.
Until she finds a naked Student in her lounge. She rips off her clothes, including her leopard skin thong, and throws herself at the Student. He takes one look at her saggy old woman tits and screams. Hughes is confronted with a frenzied old woman and tries to prise her off the Student. But the only weapon he can find is a Swiss ball and it has no effect no matter how hard he beats her. As he runs to the kitchen to fill up a saucepan full of cold water, the Student manages to wriggle free and bolts for the door. As he leaves he resigns his membership of Labour Youth, realising that a life in the parliamentary Labour Party isn’t as glamorous as he was led to believe as a Youth MP.
The Police pick up the Student. He lays a complaint against King. Police investigate her, and also Hughes for assault with a sex toy. Unfortunately the media get the wrong end of the stick and think that it was Hughes who took advantage of the 18 year old. Phil Goff wants to make the real story public, but cannot comment about an ongoing investigation. Some months later, the Police finally decide that the assault with the Swiss ball was technically illegal but there is no point taking the case to trial since no jury would convict.
The Student is embarrassed about being humped by a wrinkled pensioner and decides not to press charges. Toad pops up on Kiwiblog to tell us there is nothing illegal about a 72 year old woman having monkey sex with an 18 year old boy, and in fact that happens all the time in the Green Party. Hughes and Jacinda Ardern holiday at Paul Henry’s house. Hughes thinks that Henry is a bad boy and he’d like to be more like him. Ardern secretly thinks she can turn Hughes straight. All are disappointed.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 11:53 pm
Did any one else think Mallard looked like he had to take a hold of the shit covered end of the stick, his body language screamed out what he would have preferred to have done with Heineken bottle in all the circumstances.
Vote:June 8th, 2011 at 11:57 pm
davidp, that is disturbing, yet priceless, and still fascinatingly quite plausible. Go to the top of the class in polsci101 (Lab) NZ style.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 12:05 am
tristanb, I sense a Mills & Boon type of soft-core paper-back comming on (excuse the turn of phrase). Horomia shirtless, holding … oh I don’t know … Dyson in a flowing see thru blouse on the cover. Mmmmm.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 12:05 am
Rich Prink>still fascinatingly quite plausible
Strangely it is more plausible than the explanation that Hughes wants you to believe. Which is that in the middle of a civilised discussion on politics, the Student unilaterally rips all his clothes off and then decides to walk home.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 12:15 am
david, if I were in a “civilised discussion on politics” with Labour MP’s, I’d rip my arms off before my clothes. But who knows what pinko’s prefer to get up to in the darkness of their dens. But yeah, I doubt all of his clothes just fell off and he went for a jog.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 7:43 am
There is much that we do not know about this affair, but what we do know is that an 18 year old young man was compelled to leave the situation in such haste that he would rather have the embarrassment of returning from Hataitai to Kelburn stark naked, than remain in the situation he was in.
Now we can only suppose what that situation was, but how can we suppose it to be anything other than unseemly?
I do find myself wondering what the outcry would have been from Labour if the MP in question was on the other side of the house.
I also find myself wondering what the outcry would have been if the complainant had been an 18 year old woman.
In any case, such behavior should not be condoned. There seems to be a lot of forgiveness directed towards Darren while this incident is painted as some sort of dreadful misunderstanding. A misunderstanding does not tend to result in one party fleeing the scene stark bloody naked. Of course Hughes is now innocent in the eyes of the law, as no charges have been laid. But so is David Bain.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 8:16 am
I think the naked man theory as pure poppy cock. Yet many people are basing their suppositions on that rumor. No doubt the media are frantically making OIA requests to get the whole file. Fat chance in my view.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 8:59 am
So the Labour women would also support a male colleague seeking to get back into Parliament after accusations of sexual assault were made to the police following an incident involving plying a teenage girl with alcohol, taking her back to his bedroom and acting in such a way that she fled naked into the street in the wee small hours.
Vote:I guess when being dressed properly in the House is a matter of sexism, there ‘s not much indignation left over for the protection of our youngsters from sexual predators.
Don’t Mallard and his colleagues have children themselves? What kind of warnings do they give them when they go away to university? Or go drinking with adults? Or spend the night with a fellow MP?
There’s no room in NZ public life for this creep. Hughes should clear off to his good friend Helen in NY. The UN is such a swill of corruption she should easily find a spot for him there.
June 9th, 2011 at 9:14 am
Why is the establishment, from Paul Henry right through to even Cameron Slater, covering for Darren Hughes? What is going on?! Why won’t anyone investigate properly and tell us what really went on? Where is this 18yo and is he telling the truth or was he lying? What happened? Just the facts, and let the public decide. Sick of National people circling the wagons with their Labour counterparts on this one.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 9:25 am
So Trevor thinks Darren Hughes has a use in teh Labour Party. Obviously he is expecting the other parties in our parliament to treat this incident as if it has never happened so that Darren can wander the corridors of power again. Does anyone in their right mind think that Richard Worth would get a free ride from the left if he tried to rehabilitate his political career?
Trevor would be the first in with the knife and constant snide asides and snarky points of order against the member and his honourable member.
You would have to have rocks in your head to consider otherwise.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 9:40 am
So this is all OK if we like you but piss off if we don’t?
I am sick of hearing how wonderful this creep is. So was Clinton, the IMF creep and all the other men who think their position elevates them above normal rules of decency. Like con men, sexual predators usually are nice otherwise everyone would run a mile.
No wonder Helen, Chris and Darren went camping together. Who else would want to go with them?
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 9:54 am
If this was a false allegation as Dirty Darren says and he is completely innocent as he also says, why doesn’t he come clean, tell us what really happened and clear his name?
Vote:Why don’t pigs fly?
June 9th, 2011 at 9:57 am
BEAB SEXUALLY ASSAULTED ME LAST WEEKEND!!!!!!
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 9:59 am
tvb and poneke:
You have both claimed that the “story” reported by both Jonathan Marshall and Patrick Gower is a fabrication, a baseless rumour. Can you qualify why you believe this? What your sources are that prove this story to be false?
Surely if it were false, Hughes would be able to force both TV3 and NZH to make retractions on what was reported? If he truly were Innocent, he would, wouldn’t he?
Quite tellingly, he hasn’t. Dosen’t really scream baseless and false to me.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 9:59 am
Now that these allegations are public, BeaB must immediately be ostracized from society.
Vote:It doesn’t really matter if anyone can prove the veracity of the allegations or not.
June 9th, 2011 at 10:06 am
Cabbage –
People are pretending to know all sorts of stuff they actually don’t know around this story.
My mate had a lady storm out of our flat in the small hours one saturday morning, years ago, after he didn’t exactly cover himself with glory in the bedroom. Thankfully (for her) she put her clothes on first.
But even if she hadn’t put her clothes on first, my mate would hardly have been a criminal – merely a sh!tty lover.
Can you see how my mate wouldn’t have wanted to take his story to the 7pm news talk shows either?
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 10:15 am
It begs the question as to why the NZ Police took three months to deal with this. In effect if Hughes has been the victim of a false allegation then the police have exacerbated the issue with what must be one of the more inefficient exercises seen for a while.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 10:21 am
It beggars belief that the announcement came out the day after Hughes “friends” went to bat in the press for him.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 10:24 am
I expect Hughes to be beatified and canonised any day now. The ginga is a saint.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 10:29 am
As others above have noted, yesterday’s announcement sheds little light on what actually happened. It only tells us that the Police will not charge him. That always seemed to be the likely result.
There remains a question as to whether he exercised poor personal judgement and, perhaps more importantly, poor political judgment.
It seems strange to me that the only test that seems important to many (both public and media) is whether a politician is charged and convicted … and sometimes not even then!! (e.g. Philip Field). I think that a far broader test is required. Most ‘scandals’ have not resulted in the primary party in the scandal being convicted. Generally the key issue is the poor personal and political judgement exercised.
I would like to see Darren Hughes come back. I believe in personal redemption. However, I would first like to see an honest acknowledgement of what happened, and (if appropriate) and acknowledgment of his own failings. At the moment it seems many believe (and possibly he does himself) that he is a victim. I am not clear that is the case.
I feel very sorry for Darren Hughes personally – but if he did act inappropriately (if not illegally) then he should acknowledge that so he can move on.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 11:19 am
So where are the hand mirror, Maia, and all the other hippies? should they not be putting out flyers saying how they beleive the complainant and posters calling hughes a rapist?
becuase if this had been the case where:
A national MP gets drunk with an 18yr old girl
something happens at his home
She flees into the night naked
lays a complaint with the police
those same hippies (and the greens of course) would be braying for blood and demanding every national MP stand down. they would be posting daily on it, demanding justice, stating how they beleive the poor girl, talking about rape every chance and the ‘power imbalance’ between the older man and younger woman.
So where are they? when its one of their own does the victim not matter?
or is it that they are giant hypocrites who only care about male on female assaults and not female on male, or male on male.
personally i think that Darren might be being a bit presumptious about thinking his name has been cleared. clearly something happened that at best shows Darren to have terrible judgement and impulse control. and that does not clear ones name.
the hypocracy from those who will demand blood over any minor possible infraction if its male on female is astounding (but not surprising, especially from the greens).
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
The joys of our justice system is that once the mud is thrown a fair amount of it is going to stick.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 12:12 pm
You’re right, Mark. I tend to agree with Poneke. The police are usually quite happy to prosecute when a sexual allegation is made. Police don’t need DNA or any physical evidence to lay charges. They don’t even need corroborating evidence. They usually charge and let the jury decide. That is their mantra and they have made that clear for some time. So for them not to prosecute in this case is very significant. It suggests the allegation is implausible or there are inconsistencies in the accuser’s story. Indeed the allegation may have been politically motivated.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
“Indeed the allegation may have been politically motivated.”
Where is your evidence Ross? The young man was a long term Labour supporter.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 12:29 pm
And Don Brash was a long-time National supporter but isn’t any more. If the allegation is indeed false, as suggested by Hughes, why make it? What’s the motive?
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 12:44 pm
Ross, where is the evidence that the allegation was false? Your suggestion is not credible. Have you read about the young man? He was part of a group of young people acting as MPs. He was there becasue he was Labour. He looked up to Darren Hughes.
Would such a person run naked from Hughes residence and make a false complaint to undermine Labour or damage Hughes?
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
@ Ross,
What Chuck Bird said.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Would such a person run naked from Hughes residence
There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone ran naked from the house in question.
Unidentified persons told tabloid media that somebody sighted a naked male in Moxham Ave near the Mt Victoria tunnel in the early hours of the date in question.
Even should you believe this tabloid trash tale, the claim is a far cry from somebody running naked from Annette King’s house.
But you don’t want to listen, so don’t bother.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
RRM In your dreams
Vote:Lofty – I usually go for cock up rather than conspiracy but Hughes suddenly being seen in public in the company of people who can attract photographers and publicity, Annette King away in Southland and Goff overseas. Mallard fronts and shuts down the media. Hmmm.
June 9th, 2011 at 8:46 pm
Have read all of the above….
Nothing changes..
Hughes is a queer as a clock work orange IMHO….
Also his bed-mates reasoning must be suspect for being there..
Tar and Feather them both..
YUCK !!!….
Vote:June 10th, 2011 at 9:06 am
Adam, you must know what none of us know. Have you any evidence the 18 year old complainant went to bed with him?
Vote:June 10th, 2011 at 10:01 am
Sorry, but this guy has a lot of ground to make up before he can be considered fit to be an MP. I note the Police are saying that the charges were not ‘false charges’ as Hughes is now saying. Also, the confused commentators and journalists who are saying that Hughes has been cleared of these charges would do well to remember that he has not been cleared at all. He has simply not been charged. There is a huge difference. I am not saying he is guilty – that would have been for a court to decide. Standing down was totally appropriate.
Vote:I don’t see this as a ‘pity’ as some people describe it, but as an appalling lapse of judgement on many levels. Hardly an appropriate standard for an MP.
I hope he goes off quietly and does something else.
June 10th, 2011 at 12:19 pm
> He looked up to Darren Hughes.
Yes, Chuck, and Don Brash has been a long-time supporter of National. What’s your point? You’re making all sorts of accusations without any facts to back them up.
Commenters are asking what if this had involved an 18 year old female and a National MP. I’m guessing that most on here would have no problems with such a scenario.
Vote:June 10th, 2011 at 12:21 pm
Farmerpete said “he has not been cleared at all”.
Oh so you’re resorting to McCarthyism now.
Vote:June 10th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
No Ross, I am stating what should be apparent to everyone. To quote the police ‘the evidentiary standard did not reach the required threshold’ (or words to that effect). That is not a statement of innocence, and my statement was not a smear. What I did was to make the distinction between the position of ‘no charge’ and innocence. They are not the same thing.
Vote:The police also said that this was not a false complaint. Your ad hominem statement does you little credit.
June 10th, 2011 at 2:28 pm
Farmerpete, you stated that he hasn’t been cleared, which is indeed a smear. You will be well aware that police usually leave it to the jury to decide in this sort of case. Why not this time? Obviously if the accuser’s allegations are implausible or full of inconsistencies, then that would surely mean that the evidentiary standard did not reach the required standard. You naively seem to believe whatever the police tell you.
Vote:June 10th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
Ross, I don’t naively believe whatever anyone tells me, and nor should you naively accept there is no cause for concern here. There is no reason to believe anything about the accuser’s testimony at this point. We just don’t know what the substance is.
Vote:Perhaps you should reflect on what constitutes a smear. Pointing out that Hughes is neither ‘innocent’ or ‘cleared’ does not constitute a smear. The point is we don’t know enough to say anything, and until we do, he shouldn’t be returning to parliament. It is that simple.
June 10th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
Ross
Stop being disingenuous, I like an argument at anytime, but you don’t have one, flag it and watch some telly
Vote: