June 9th, 2011 at 12:10 pm by David Farrar
- If as Darren says, he did nothing wrong, why doesn’t Labour add him to the party list for the 2011 election?
- Will media now apply to lift the injunction prohibiting the publication of the complainant’s name?
- If they do, will this mean that the complainant will then go public with his version of events?
- How many Labour MPs agree with Tracy Watkins that it was “Goff’s shambolic handling of the affair” not the police investigation that killed Darren’s political career?
- Which Sunday newspaper will have the more interesting story this weekend – the Sunday Star-Times or the Herald on Sunday?
Tags:
Darren Hughes
This entry was posted on Thursday, June 9th, 2011 at 12:10 pm and is filed under NZ Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
June 9th, 2011 at 12:16 pm
Seems very fishy to me that Darren hasn’t come out with his version of what happened.
Surely if you had a reasonable explanation for what caused the complaint you’d tell all ASAP
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 12:44 pm
1. Not sure that Darren is ready to return to the fray just yet (come back when labour have a chance at winning the election perhaps).
Vote:2. If they hadn’t thought of it already, your prompt will probably be enough to make it happen (I suspect some mischievousness in there).
3. Yes.
4. All of them (including Goff), if they have any sense at all (which they don’t, so the actual answer is none of them).
5. That’s rather obvious – neither (as usual)
June 9th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
How iron-clad are lists? Surely you’d think the answer to 1. would be that it’s too late for him now?
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
Of course, the name of the complainant has already been in the media so its hardly a secret anyway.
But, as he’s one of only two persons who know what really happened (and what didn’t happen), his own summary of events would be timely. Indeed, it could put an end to the innuendo and speculation.
OTOH, Hughes could do the same – especially if the rumours have no substance.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
My read of the police statement ‘insufficient evidence’ is that the complainant does not want to go to court and be exposed to all manner of attack and unwanted publicity. And who can blame him. And let’s face it, nobody (excepting voyeurs and tabloid editors) would see a court case as being worthwhile. An unfortunate incident took place; nobody died. Hughes’ reputation has been permanently sullied, deservedly in my opinion. If Labour try to paint him as being a man who did nothing wrong, (and Mallard is spinning this line) and reinstate him, they are seriously misguided. In politics some things never go away; remember the Moyle affair.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 1:32 pm
The reporting of this matter has been very slack.
This Stuff article said “former Labour MP Darren Hughes has been cleared of sexual assault allegations arising from a night out in March”.
No, he hasn’t been cleared. Police have decided not to pursue a prosecution because the complaint against Hughes did not reach the evidential threshold required to bring charges.
There’s quite a difference. I wonder how long it’ll be before he gets a UN job…
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 1:45 pm
trout
OK, so if it were an 18 year old girl and she suddenly decided that she didn’t want the police to proceede – what would we be saying ?
OH, hang on I forgot the key component of the situation, I’ll try again.
OK, so if it were an 18 year old girl and she suddenly decided that she didn’t want the police to proceede against the member of the Labour party – what would we be saying ?
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
trout>Hughes’ reputation has been permanently sullied, deservedly in my opinion.
I wonder about this. I think a reasonable Hughes would sneak away, relieved that there was insufficient evidence in a case that probably came down to his word against the complainant. He should be glad that he isn’t facing a court case and jail. Instead he and Labour are claiming vindication and Hughes is saying he still has a lot to offer the country, as if we’re so short of talented people that we need to rely on a drunken sex pest. That is the height of arrogance and illustrates why he isn’t fit for political life.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 2:24 pm
Trout: The Moyle affair? Sorry don’t remember it.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 2:51 pm
David in Chch:
You might want to look this up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Moyle
Although the article suggests Muldoon might have seen Moyle as a threat, I’ve heard two Labour MPs from the time suggest that it was a faction within Labour who set up Moyle.
Who knows?
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
1. If they did they would be admitting that his resignation was a mistake, so they will do it in 2014
Vote:2. To be expected
3. Unlikely that either will want to
4. Watkin is wrong, taking leave without giving a reason is no better than doing so once the story broke – the option was to either ride it out until the police made a decision or to avoid the distraction by sacrificing the MP. There was no other choice and various management options did not change that. In many ways the media’s focus on the issue forced the decision that was reluctantly taken.
5. Can the media get versions of events from acquaintances of the two men … that could game change 3 a reluctance from either to discuss this in public.
June 9th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
What davidp said.
Also Hughes’ statement says “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.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1106/S00092/statement-from-hon-darren-hughes.htm
Hughes is essentially calling the complainant a liar.
Whilst we don’t know the facts of the accusation, we do know the complainant was a Labour-youth type supporter, so why would he have any motivation to be making anything up against Hughes?
With Labour in lock-down mode (no one talking to the media and after taking pot-shots at the complainant yesterday), the Labour Machine is trying very, very hard to shut down and contain the debate.
Why is that? Why is this situation so “special” to merit such measures? Which is also interesting because it means for the first time since the reign of H1, the Labour MP’s are united in closing ranks on a “problem” issue. Why is that? Could it be the NY Branch of the Labour Party are issuing orders in Goff’s and King’s absence to protect Hughes?
(Maybe TVNZ/TV3 ought to get a reporter and camera over to Goff’s overseas location and ask him some direct questions over who’s really leading Labour)
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
niggly>Hughes is essentially calling the complainant a liar.
Hughes is also painting himself as the victim. We’re supposed to feel sorry for him.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
+ 1 davidp.
I suspect that the complainant has realised that he was a silly naive lad/youth/student/young man to get himself into such a situation, but I do feel sorry for him that he felt he had to flee from it in the nuddy. Usually that’s a capping week prank.
His mother sounded a sensible sort though, and I’ve no doubt is keeping everything under control at her end.
And I hope that for his own sake, Hughes doesn’t let his interest in lads/youths/students go any further.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
Indeed davidp. We have all the hallmarks of a traditional H1&H2 disinformation campaign (likes those from yesteryear), such as undermining the credibility of the complainant (eg Hughes has “been falsely accused” etc), Hughes being painted as a victim, but despite all that Hughes has credibility (eg he’s supposedly so regarded that he is deemed to be worthy of returning to Parliament etc etc). Classic! From hero-to-villan-to hero again!
But usually when these sorts of campaigns are mounted to minimise damage, sell a message, extricate the “damaged goods” and then seed the campaign for the return (of the new Hughes Mk II) means where there is smoke there is fire (and that Hughes sure does have some friends in high places assisting)!
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 4:47 pm
I feel very sorry for Darren Hughes if he has been falsely accused.
However, naked man running the streets in the middle of the night doesn’t look good for an MP.
Vote:That Hughes was an MP in the highest court in the land and is now by inference blaming his victim for his problem doesn’t do it for me.
Nah!
Hughes can come back after he has prosecuted his victim for false reporting and properly explained to us what happened.
He’s blown his chances.
June 9th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
I love that we don’t know what actually happened in the house, but we are certain that as someone ran away naked there MUST have been something criminal about it!
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 5:05 pm
Did the 18yo get naked and THEN decide he really wasn’t into our Dazz after all?
Just askin’!!!
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
RRM the 18 year old was naked and the solution to this can be found splashed over his cheeks. Fullmoon King is part of this equation and I think she needs to have her tonsils swabbed as well.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 5:15 pm
It’s sadly fascinating that no one in Labour, MPs and supporters alike, are remotely attempting to heed the established facts. A naked 18 year-old exits Darren Hughes’ home into the street, in such a hurry to suggest he was in fear of his life or his person.
A question for the Labour Party and its followers: Please tell me how the facts tally with the version you’re now attempting to promote and publicise – namely that “Hughes did nothing wrong” ???
The facts were quite uncomplicated yet the police investigation took three months. Was this because the complainant didn’t want to be dragged deeper into something that held the potential to mark him for life, so he was somewhat understandably unwilling to “cooperate?” Thus the police tried for all that time in attempt to get him to change his mind?
I can accept Darren Hughes is a personable, hardworking, bright sort of chap – many different people have so attested – and I’ll also accept that, for the Labour Party, his loss is a huge blow. But I’m bothered that so many in Labour’s ranks appear to be acting willfully blind, dumb and stupid as to the enormity of the incident’s implications – which to date have in no way been attempted to be explained. So many of Labour’s MPs and supporters have treated the police statement that they lacked “sufficient evidence to lay charges” as translating as, or equating to, “it’s our finding that Hughes has no case to answer.” By no earthly means is such a translation possible.
It seems to me that this incident and all its subsequent developments reveal the elemental difference in the attitudes of Labour and National supporters. (I’m neither.) Patently Labour supporters are wishful thinkers, their approach and even their understanding is dictated by their emotions, rather than by any sort of logic they might apply. The outcome they wanted here was the one they appeared to believe should be the case – regardless and irrespective of at what, the facts really did indicate.
It’s my belief that, given the same set of facts, National supporters would have been far more judgmental and far more demanding of an upfront explanation. It’s almost a given that they’d have been far more condemnatory – and there’d have been no talk whatsoever about second chances.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
Anyway Positan lets get back to DNA. The 18 year old exited Darren and then exited Darren’s house only after exiting Fullmoon King. I also heard Helengrad was in Wellington that night and if you have them all in the same room with a pound of butter…well who am I?
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Would be good to see Hughes forced to get real work in the private sector, you know, do something that produces something. Hughes has spent his life in the cloistered world of socialist academics and professional tit suckers. A hard few years of honest work might make a man of him and even better still cure him of his socialist afflictions.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 5:35 pm
The labour Party were between a rock and a hard place. How could they put Hughes on their list while a Police investigation is underway. If he was charged Hughes would have to remove his name from the list. That could prejudice his trial – where there is smoke there is fire etc etc. Alternatively should they hold up the whole list while they waited for the Police?? Not likely. Hughes did the correct thing and stood down. I cannot rule out Hughes coming back in a by-election – say Annette King’s seat – if Labour are in opposition. That provides a fair solution. In the meantime Hughes will get private space to deal with his issues of sexuality and his consequential drinking problem. Assuming he can get to grips with that Hughes has a bright future ahead of him to be sure.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
Ok Starboard, mature comment please. Hughes and his ilk enjoy the thrust and parry of Parliament.
If a board room was managed in the same was as the House there would be director blood on the floor. Key considers himself the great debator but he is really only a cheeky young Turk with a quick turn of phrase, nothing really original.
Hughes and Key are of a type. You really need the old war horses like Mallard and Brownlee to get down and dirty in the bear pit and add Hughes in there as fodder and Key as dessert. Brutal blows and swaggering abuse, not effeminite mincing.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 6:49 pm
Regardless of politics, this country would be a basket case if in finding our leaders we had to resort to people who exhibited such appalling errors of judgement. Let him go off and have a happy and productive life – but NOT as one of my elected leaders.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Of course it was not the home of just Mr Hughs.
Maybe it was someone else (scary as fuck) the young fellow was running from.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 7:05 pm
You’re asking far too much.
Vote:I can bet my house Paree Hughes will be back at politics and the public trought at the first possible opportunity given to him by his socialist mob. Guaranteed.
June 9th, 2011 at 7:38 pm
Positan @ 5.15pm you just need to look back to the Philip Field fiasco for the template on how Labour deal with villains in their own ranks. There is a pattern of obfuscation, denial (‘he has done no wrong’), justification (‘he was only trying to help’) and then counter attack “his accusers want something for themselves’. It is not ‘wishful thinking’; it is blatant political chicanery of the worst kind. Although there may even be misguided belief that the Left can do no wrong.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 8:26 pm
1. Mud sticks. With this case ‘not proven’ rather than resolved either way in court, there will always be people who think the worst of him. (Possibly correctly, for all anyone knows).
I think he’s stuffed either way. If he tries a comeback too soon, it will look like arrogance. If he doesn’t try at all, it will look like an admission of guilt.
2 Seems likely
3. Share presumably embarrassing and personal details about an incident you wish you could forget with the world, to remain linked to your name for as long as the internet survives? Or let people think what they like and stuff them and hope it will all be forgotten about soon enough?
4. No idea. But it certainly didn’t help.
5. Both are pretty dismal, sadly.
burt>if it were an 18 year old girl and she suddenly decided that she didn’t want the police to proceede – what would we be saying ?
Certain Kiwibloggers would be urging her to take the blame for her own actions, while others would be going on about false accusations and women who change their minds after leading men on…. But that’s from a previous Topic of The Day.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
Trout, I agree largely with your point. However, in this case, the facts were all out in the open from the onset. In Field’s case, they were not.
Yes, Labour would have acted, postured and denied as you state – but, prior to now, they had neither the room to manoeuvre, nor any especial angle that could be immediately contested.
When I spoke of “wishful thinking,” I wasn’t referring to the deceitful measures of Labour’s leadership, but to the response of their average Joe Blow in the street. They were the ones who, in performances on NewstalkZB this morning, were trotting out fatuous, brain-dead tripe of entirely emotional origin. The focus of those callers dwelt entirely on the view that Hughes had been cleared of any wrongdoing whatsoever – and therefore had to be innocent.
It was the utterly unseeking, undiscerning outlook of those “caring” callers that amazed me.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
Asking around today, almost everyone I spoke to were pleased with the outcome. Hughes was got at and set up, very much like Colin Moyle was set up years ago. I am actually surprised at the number who liked the guy as a result of his Thursday morning contributions on morning TV. It is interesting that the most forgiving are older women who are much less homophobic than the MSM. I think the NACT party will lose a lot of votes if they keep needling the media to make an issue of Hughes. It was not Goff but the media that forced Hughes to step down. I hope he gets a chance to stand in this next election.
Vote:June 9th, 2011 at 9:32 pm
Unbelievable.
Vote:http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/blogs/john-pagani-left-leaning/5117371/Darrens-tormenters-have-too-much-form
June 9th, 2011 at 10:00 pm
Worse than unbelievable. The guy was on turps or oxygen starved when he wrote that. It wasn’t the nats who complained about the speeding car. It was the members of the public who had the shit scared out of them. It wasn’t a figment of their imagination — drivers were prosected as scapegoats.
Vote:It wasn’t the nats who got into Parker. It was an embittered business partner who claimed that he have certified a companies office entry incorrectly. Parker was not pressured to resigned. He did so as a matter of principle because the attorney-general should not do that. Should we mention that Dalziell was proven to be a liar? Should we mention Goff’s hypocracy over Worth then Hughes. And can he honestly say that Hughes only went out for the night? That is dishonest journalism.
June 9th, 2011 at 10:40 pm
I had no idea until now that John Pagani could write such shite articles without any substance or truth.
So much for commentators describing him as a genius etc.
Oh well at least I can now compartmentalise him in my “partisan lying fool” file box, along with the rest of Labour’s MP’s!! Thanks JP!!
Vote:June 10th, 2011 at 6:43 am
At the same time we have John Hamstrung of the Herald dutifully continuing his role as unpaid PR/spin-doctor for the Labour Party over this same issue. In fact, how proactive have National been over this? Not much at all they’ve left it to the police. Imagine how this would be spinning in La La Land, if it had been a National MP.
I think it is a reasonable standard to set – if the alleged complainant had been female would these same people be saying the same thing – and, I have to sadly surmise that yes, they would. So this has nothing to do with say homophobia, or an active application of an objective moral bench-mark relating to sexual offences.
It is more about which MP and whihc party he represents. This issue, sadly goes beyond party politics, it reads more like a self-appointed cabal of luminaries defending their own.
For what reason precisely, because Hughes is ‘a good chap’? because he has friends who claim he is ‘a good chap’? How many of his friends would accept this kind of (alleged) infraction to be be visited upon their own nephew, niece, daughter, son etc?
Why else? because the perpetrator is ‘popular and well-liked’? Funny I thought that was one of the reasons that certain kinds of nasty behaviour could be enacted by certain people, undetected for a time, because they don’t seem to fit a profile of what a sex-offender looks like.
These naive dullards ((I’d mention Adern, and Armstrong, Little amongst them) should keep their meddling fingers out.
Next they’ll be arguing that our MPs should be free to molest the young with impunity (if they are ‘nice chaps /nice chapettes’) and have name suppresison thrown in to boot in case they should feel the urge to do it in the future without jeopardising their wage-packets or ‘promising futures’.
The other thing is – if you are such a dedicated servant of the people as Hughes, with a brilliant political career in front of you and can exhibit this kind of basic fuck up – what is it saying about the internal standard or calibre of our MPs in general if this guy is being painted by his colleagues as a ‘promising’ example of a future public servant.
Surely we can set the bar higher than that – I’d argue we deserve that much at least. Our journalists should be doing their duty to the public to remind our elective representatives of this, rather than acting like pampered lap-dogs rushing to defend their mistresses.
Instead they rush to act a Public Relations departments for a political elite which thinks that molesting the young should be their a prerogative… if you are a ‘nice chap’ and hve a ‘promising’ political future ahead of you.
Unless he’s found not guilty in which case forget everthing I just said.
Vote:June 10th, 2011 at 7:23 am
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5124869/Hughes-false-complaint-claims-rejected
An article at odds with the Labour spin on the issue…….
I know there are a lot of people who support Darren in this matter. In light of the fact that Hughes has claimed he is the victim of a false complaint, which the police statement has rebuked, we are left with the conclusion that Hughes really believes he has done no wrong. What will that say to those who have offered support to him?
The question then becomes, what does that say about Darren Hughes? If the complaint was valid, as this article suggests, than for Hughes to claim exoneration and being the victim of a false complaint, is false in itself.
Vote:June 10th, 2011 at 7:42 am
Slightly,
If the claim was valid, as police are saying, why not charge Hughes? Maybe it’s valid but implausible? What is the police definition of valid?
I find it rather strange that police are now commenting on the merits or otherwise of complaints. They’re not paid to do that but since they’ve created a precedent, why not release all the info surrounding this case that’s not subject to the Privacy Act?
Vote:June 10th, 2011 at 8:05 am
ross.
There may be a number of reasons as to why no charges are to be laid in this case. It may be the wishes of the complainant not to procede in this instance. There may be a lack of evidence. We don’t know. What we do know is that the police regarded the complaint as genuine, while Hughes does not, at least publically.
As to why police are commenting on this case, it would appear that a police spokesman was replying to a direct question about Hughes’s assertion that he was the victim of a false complaint. Hughes seems quite comfortable to brand this young man as a liar, in an effort to portray himself as a victim, and this police statement appears to contradict that view.
Can you imagine the outcry if the young man was a young woman, and the MP in question was carrying on in this way?
Vote:June 10th, 2011 at 8:09 am
Slightly,
Police are asked lots of questions, some of which they don’t respond to. They were not required to comment on the validity or otherwise of this complaint. It doesn’t change the fact that Hughes may well be a victim of a false complaint. We’ve seen cases go to trial that have apparently involved false allegations. The police perspective is not an unbiased one.
Vote:June 10th, 2011 at 8:19 am
ross.
Making a false complaint is a criminal offence. If that is the case, and Hughes is correct in his assertion that this was a false complaint, then the young man in question has a case to answer. The police comment, that they had no concerns about the validity of the complaint, is an appropriate response, given that Hughes is, in effect, accusing the young man in question of a criminal act.
Vote:June 10th, 2011 at 8:23 am
I’d surmise from such a statement then that the complaint that was bought against Darren was boderline in nature, and after investigation the Police have surmised that either no illegal event took place, or, that if such an event took place its legality was tenuous. What they have said is that the complaint was valid. Ie: the complainant was right to make it.
The police have come out publicly and in effect called Mr Hughes a Liar. It’s not a good look for Darren. Not as an individual and certainly NOT as the disgraced former chief whip of the Labour party.
Vote:June 10th, 2011 at 8:27 am
Slightly,
You don’t get it. The police are not unbaised. if you believe everything they say, then more fool you.
Vote:June 10th, 2011 at 8:28 am
“Paree” Hughes is asked to front up, but will he?
Vote:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/crime/news/article.cfm?c_id=30&objectid=10731290
June 10th, 2011 at 8:56 am
I think Positan at 5:15 p.m. nails it pretty well. His understanding of the case seems pretty good to me.
I would add that this is exactly the sort of behaviour that one should expect from now on from Labour MPs. Don’t forget that Labour made prostitution legal, made homosexuality equal with marriage and have done everything they can to denigrate traditional morality. They took a considerable hit for it but they believe in homosexuality and gay rights. Bringing in civil unions and legalising prostitution was against the wishes of many people in the electorate. But they believe in it.
Darren Hughes has just acting out his beliefs. He believes in free sex. He believes homosexuality is good. Why should he not have sex with 18-year-old young men? What he is doing is entirely consistent with Labour’s philosophy.
Labour believes in the sexual revolution, no restraint on sex. Now many would say this was coerced and the sexual revolution is about consenting adults. However once you get rid of moral restraint then we can expect more and more episodes like this that cross the line.
I think this whole episode is a good example of Labour’s squalid Liberal morals in action.
Vote:June 10th, 2011 at 9:10 am
ross.
I do not believe everything that the police say. I do not believe everything that the Labour party says either.
Vote:June 10th, 2011 at 10:04 am
Tell us the truth, Darren Hughes, and all of it; otherwise bugger off.
Vote:If you can’t tell us the full story then we don’t need you on the public payroll ever again.
June 10th, 2011 at 10:05 am
> “Paree” Hughes is asked to front up, but will he?
Yeah a blogger wants him to front up, so that’s the end of the matter.
Besides, I think he’s already fronted up by saying the complaint is false. I’d suggest it’s not Hughes who needs to front up but his accuser.
Vote:June 10th, 2011 at 10:07 am
BeaB: What part of false complaint don’t you understand?
Vote:June 10th, 2011 at 10:26 am
“Hughes was got at and set up, very much like Colin Moyle was set up years ago.”
DMS, just how do you suggest he was set up?
Vote:June 10th, 2011 at 10:40 am
ross.
What part of “Hughes’ false complaint claim rejected” don’t you understand.
There is a difference between a false complaint, and a complaint where there is not enough evidence to provide proof in a court of law.
The facts are:
a. Hughes has publically stated that he is the victim of a false complaint.
b. The police have publically stated that “they had no concerns about the validity of the complaint against him.”
Both can’t be right, but you assume that the police must be wrong. You say you believe the police are not unbiased. Fine, thats your opinion. But seeing as the other party in this discussion is Darren Hughes, do you not actually think he might just be a little predisposed to portray his version of the facts in a way that paints him in the best light?
Vote:June 10th, 2011 at 10:43 am
Perhaps some posters missed this article… The Police have rejected Hughes’ suggestion that it was a ‘false complaint’ …
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5124869/Hughes-false-complaint-claims-rejected
Vote:June 10th, 2011 at 11:09 am
ross If it is a false complaint as Dirty Darren asserts, and you choose his version over the police confirmation of the validity of the complaint, then surely he can tell us what actually did happen as it would be in his interests to do so if he does in fact want to come back into public life.
Something like this?
“I took him home because as a senior MP I thought it my duty to take care of a drunk youngster who I had been buying drinks for, made him a mug of cocoa and tucked him up in bed, before phoning his parents to tell them he was safe at the home of Annette King, Deputy Leader of the Opposition”.
Or
“I took advantage of a starry-eyed young student, got him hammered and took him home to have my wicked way with him but, once we had stripped off, he ran for his life. Still can’t understand why he found my advances so repellent or why he felt he had to tell the cops”.
He could even sell his story to one of the women’s mags if he is short of the readies.
Vote:June 10th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
BeaB: You’re asking Hughes to prove a negative. If I say God exists and you say He doesn’t, then how would you prove He doesn’t exist? It’s not up to Hughes to prove anything, and how can he if nothing happened? Surely it’s up to his accuser to explain what allegedly happened. Maybe his accuser doesn’t want to because his story is implausible or is full of holes, which is why police have decided not to lay charges.
Slightly, I assume nothing but I know from personal experience that police are not unbiased. Their mantra has been to let the jury decide in cases like this. Their decision not to lay charges is highly significant even if you still don’t get it.
Vote:June 10th, 2011 at 12:16 pm
This whole thing is an outrage.
I will risk more demerit points. I have only got my first to lot of demerit points over this issue.
This thing stinks of political corruption. When I arrived in NZ in the 60′s there would have been very little corruption in the police.
Things changed when Clark got rid of Peter Doone. It would seem that this has set a trend that has persisted even with a change of government. I do not know exactly how or why but I strongly suspect that if the complainant was female it would have been different and that Hughes was looked after by homosexual friends in high places some could be Nation party members. I know some National MPs are strongly of the view that a 14 year old boy was molested in the US but will not speak out.
It make me sick people portraying Hughes as a victim. If the ACT staffer he had hit on earlier laid a complaint then there could be some grounds for claiming a set up.
There are only two explanations for the young man fleeing Hughes residence naked. The first is he agree to sex but changes his mind. I think this unlikely but if that was the case and he felt the need run down the street naked he would have to have good reason.
It is quite possible that Hughes put him to bed saying he would sleep on the sofa. When in bed naked in his underwear Dirty Darren hit on he aggressively. If Hughes tries to get his snout in the trough again I hope the name Dirty Darren sticks.
Vote:June 10th, 2011 at 12:19 pm
ross – actually it’s a piece of cake to prove the xtian god doesn’t exist, Mark 16:17-18 says true believers can drink any poison without harm. Easily tested with a bottle of Janola and a true believer…
Vote:June 10th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
Chuck, you would have been a sensation in the Mccarthyist era, naming and shaming without a skerrick of evidence.
Vote:June 10th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
ross I think your faith in Dirty Darren is commendable. I still maintain that if he is innocent as he claims he should give us an explanation of what happened that night. I don’t want him to ‘prove’ anything. Just tell us the facts as he sees them, that support his contention that he is completely innocent, the charge was false and he has done nothing wrong.
Vote:We aren’t dumb. Despite what Labour supporters think, most of us are grown up enough to choose our own food, buy our own lightbulbs and make up our own minds about whether someone is telling the truth.
If this guy really is so nice and likable and intelligent, telling us the truth about what happened shouldn’t be beyond him. At the moment I think his behaviour has been shameful and ignominious but I am always ready to change my mind.
June 11th, 2011 at 8:32 am
Ross, if those accused of rape or crimes or a sexual nature required the evidence you thought appropriate before the case could go to court the only case that would go to court were those where there was real violence.
It is very common for police to charge a man based solely on the word of a female complainant. Is a woman felt the need to run naked from a man’s residence and immediately laid a complaint it is almost certain that charges would have been laid. I am sure there will be enough of us with good memories to raise this issue if Dirty Darren tries to get his snout at the public trough again.
Vote:June 11th, 2011 at 8:44 am
> We aren’t dumb…
The trouble is, BeaB, that when you get behind a keyboard, that’s exactly what you seem to be. You can’t prove a negative but I suspect you will never get that. And people like you are never prepared to change their minds.
Chuck, you are aboslutley right. Police would almost certainly have laid charges in any similar case. So instead of arguing, how about thinking why police didn’t charge Hughes? I suspect it’s because the claims were implausible, inconsistent, or just full of holes. Your antipathy towards Labour seems to be clouding your thinking.
Vote:June 11th, 2011 at 8:57 am
Ross, the only legitimate reason the police could have for not proceeding is becasue the complainant has decided after all the publicity not to testify. If that is the case the public have a right to know.
The complainant was studying political science and wanted to be a Labour MP. He had a girlfriend. There is no evidence that he knew of Hughes previous try on with an ACT staffer at a Christmas party. He was unaware that Hughes was a homosexual or bisexual.
What reason would a young man like him have to run naked from Hughes’ residence and fabricate a story?
Vote:June 11th, 2011 at 9:35 am
Let’s revisit the events in March, for some people seem to be downplaying the incident now (after the passage of time).
NZ Herald 25 March: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10714804
Labour MP’s and former Party President Mike Williams are very concerned about the Hughes incident (now if there wasn’t any susbstance to the incident, Labour MP’s and Mike Williams etc at the time wouldn’t be so concerned etc).
NZH 24 March: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10714682
An overview of the drinking that preceded the incident.
NZH 26 March: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10715018
Report on two witness’ talking to 3News. (Note: no Police comment on witness statements).
NZH 27 March: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10715181
Report on allegations of Hughe’s previous sexual approaches to young man at ACT Party in 2009.
BUT ALSO mention made by Labour MP about Hughes sexual approach to a Labour male staffer in 2008!
C’mon (some) people, at the time in March even Labour MP’s were aware of Hughes’ previous sexual indiscretions.
Even if we put aside the “naked man running” witness statements because these were not verified or commented on by Police, we do know that Police have said that a complaint has been made against Hughes of a sexual nature.
Clearly something “sexual” occured, and for a complaint to be made it would have to have been serious. Labour MP’s and associates were concerned (as they knew about Hughes’ previous indiscretions). Where there’s smoke there’s fire.
Now, this past week, we have Hughes claiming to be a victim and the Police contradicting his claim. We have Hughes and Labour talking about a come back. I think it is time Labour’s senior leadership be put on the spot (Goff/King/Mallard) because we have an extraordinary situation of an MP received a complaint of a sexual nature in which he wasn’t cleared, and now Labour are trying to play everything down. Frankly, whilst we expect double-standards from the Labour Party (where their own are the subject of Police complaints), it simply isn’t good enough to run their spin machine making out Hughes’ has been cleared and the complainant a liar. I believe Goff’s, King’s and Hughes’ credibility is still on the line (over the handling of this affair) and I hope MSM thinks the same and start asking the hard questions.
Nevermind this ‘Hughes is a good guy’ bullshit, if someone is a sexual predator and has a severe alcohol problem we need to know the truth. Especially for the sake of other sexual abuse victims out there who see the “system” ring fence and protect the guilty. It’s simply not good enough.
Vote:June 11th, 2011 at 6:57 pm
Chuck,
You ask, rhetorically, what reason would a young man like him have to run naked from Hughes’ residence and fabricate a story? Did you see the accuser running from Hughes’ residence? No, you’re making shit up for your own ends. And if you can’t think why someone would fabricate a story, then you’re sillier than I thought. Numerous false rape allegations are made each year…please explain why that is the case.
Vote:June 11th, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Niggly, why do you think your smears will work?
Vote:June 11th, 2011 at 8:02 pm
Ross, the question was not rhetorical. What is your explanation? How many false rape allegations are made where someone runs naked from the residence of a sexual predator with a track record?
I hope Dirty Dirt Shoot Darren decides to stand in an electorate seat. It will be fun asking him what happened that night.
Vote: