Apology to Clare Curran
November 29th, 2011 at 11:00 am by David FarrarIn the final week of the election campaign Labour MP Clare Curran blogged a picture drawn by a seven year old that asked John Key not to sell our treasures, fish and toys. I was critical of Clare’s decision to blog the picture, as were many of the commentators at Red Alert.
I have long held the view that children and politics are best kept apart, and never like seeing kids used in protest marches and the like. I stand by my criticism on that issue.
A couple of days later I had someone point out to me a photo on Facebook of some people in Dunedin waving Labour and Clare Curran hoardings at traffic. One of those waving a Clare Curran banner was a young girl, who looked around nine or ten.
With the previous issue fresh in my mind, I took this as evidence that Labour was happy to exploit children for political gain, and blogged the photo. In doing so, I made two mistakes.
The first mistake is that I assumed there was no legitimate reason for the young girl, to be out campaigning for Clare. I was wrong. There was an excellent and very positive reason for her to be doing so. It is not my role to specify what that is, but it was my error that I did not think of that possibility before I posted.
My second mistake is that regardless of what the reason was, I didn’t consider the impact on the young person of blogging their photo, and the comments it would attract. Yes, the photo was already public on Facebook, but I gave it more profile. Incidentally Tim Shiels (A Dunedin YN) also regrets publishing the photo. I deeply regret that my actions caused upset to the young girl concerned
In the heat of an election campaign, sometimes you over-react and get things wrong. This is one of those things I got wrong, and I do regret the impact it had on Clare and especially the young girl who was in the photo. They have my apologies, and I hope that next time in the same circumstances I’d do it differently, learning from my mistakes.
Related posts:
- Labour’s Curran employed thanks to Minister
- The Curran scandal
- Curran wins Dunedin South nomination
- Labour on Mobile Termination Rates
November 29th, 2011 at 11:09 am
You’re out in public waving an election poster for someone, and you don’t think your photograph will get potentially taken and posted somewhere. So a child may not think of that, but their responsible adult should do so. You don’t want your photo “out there”, don’t wave posters publicly. You get all upset about it, I thought you would be proud to be out there, if not, why not.
I don’t care the reason, use children to push your candidates, then getting noticed doing so surely is the intention. How could you possibly get upset about it if you meant them to be noticed ?
Sorry David, don’t get the apology, unless it’s meant to be a stark contrast to Clare’s “graciousness” in the same area.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 11:13 am
I’m with you Ed. ……. Clare is supposedly a PR expert….. she should know the possible consequences of such actions …. even if its her firstborn a child on the hustings is inappropriate .
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 11:15 am
Ed – seems like you are jumping to conclusions just as DPF did – He has mentioned there was a legitimate reason for the girl to be there, accept that in the same spirit that DPF has done.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 11:17 am
I think that while the girl may be upset it will actually serve her well teaching her two lessons:
1. Life isn’t fair and that is due, in part, to the fact that adults too make mistakes
Vote:2. Politics is a dirty business and she should think twice about getting involved in her adult years
November 29th, 2011 at 11:18 am
I don’t know the reason, and unless that or any child is being exploited I don’t need to know the reason. No one needs to know. This whole thing reminded me of the Michael Laws retort to the children who sent him things he didn’t like. It depressed me to think that grown, mature people have so little faith in the ability, and vulnerabilities of children.
I couldn’t bring myself to read this and a few other blogs (red alert) after seeing that post. I came back obviously. But attacks on children who are unable to defend themselves (not your post specifically DPF, mainly the comments).
Children are smarter than a lot of people give them credit.
And a gracious apology DPF, but some others need to search themselves and consider whether they are happy enough to hide behind their internet anonymity and continue to produce such scorn on internet blogs and forums or be brave enough to do something like you have just done. Reflected, then felt an apology is in order.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 11:20 am
disagree with you voice of reason ….. In my world there is no legitimate reason for a child on the hustings…. whether it is your child, a relative, a school project or a fun day on the curb. Political campaigning is not for kids.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 11:22 am
A gracious apology DPF and we will have to take your word for the reason the child was there. Gentlemanly.
Vote:However the person who also needs to humble themselves is the person who took her out there. Whatever the background
November 29th, 2011 at 11:23 am
Why would DPF waste an apology on such a nasty and vicious piece of work like Curran.
Nothing in Curran’s past warrants an apology IMHO.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 11:25 am
It was deemed OK (one presumes by a parent) for this girl to be seen in a public environment waving a political corflute sign. But now that her photo has appeared in a wider environment, its suddenly not OK?
Bollocks.
All actions have consequences. If I stand on a public street waving a sign, then I can’t bleat if someone snaps it and puts it in the paper / puts it on Facebook etc. If I wasn’t comfortable with the potential consequences, then I shouldn’t have done it in the first place.
The ‘problem’ is that a parent / adult / guardian / whatever, saw fit to involve a kid in a political stunt in the first place. They’re the one that should be apologising.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 11:27 am
A parent puts their child in a public place helping somebody to run for public office. Somebody takes a photo of the proceedings and it gets published, then somebody else republishes it. It is a photo of somebody doing something public in a public place – and somebody thought it was newsworthy.
Vote:You shouldn’t let your kids hold hoardings in a public place if you don’t want them to make the paper – it’s a fairly simple concept. That said, I wouldn’t say it was necessarily bad publicity, especially if the kid is a relative of the MP – it means that the whole family cares about getting the MP elected, and that their family backs the decision of the adult to become an MP.
Now you have told us there was a legitimate reason, don’t leave us hanging.
November 29th, 2011 at 11:28 am
I judge your comments to be quite sanctimonious, excuseofpuppets. Children are indeed smarter than a lot of people give them credit, but they are also vulnerable. Apologise to the child, by all means…. but to the person who allowed them to be vulnerable?
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 11:36 am
I respect free speech and people’s right to disagree with me, but I’d rather people didn’t on this thread as it undermines my apology. It’s pretty simple – I got it wrong, and was in the wrong.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 11:37 am
Perhaps you should turn off comments on this thread…
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 11:42 am
The only person that should be apologising is Curran to the guardian and the child. Her experience as a public figure she would know the criticism that comes from campaigning, it was a foolish decision to allow the girl be exposed like that.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 11:43 am
williamsheridan, I can see how it was a bit sanctimonious. My own pent up frustrations when I was reading the blogs on this issue. I guess what I didn’t point out was my initial concern that a child was out there in the first place. But then I know of a few kids who will relentless insist on going to events like these just to be with their parents or guardians or sometimes just their favourite people…like an uncle. It was that fine line between being morally wrong and just kids being kids – who want to be grown ups. I’m not saying that is what happened in this case, I’m just saying that something like that could happen and how something like that on the outside could be seen or be spun into something more sinister. I stayed out of the debate because I didn’t want to add fuel the fire, as it were, as I knew that blogsphere people were bound to jump in with their own 2 cents about the kids and parents – like DPF did – without knowing the whole story.
Apparently there is more to this story, so I am leaving it at that. And if there is a positive reason for the child to be out there then those who made comments directed at the child involved need to assess what those comments were or could be perceived to be.
I apologise for my sanctimonious comment.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 11:47 am
Just saw DPF’s comment. But too late to edit/remove my last comment. I’ll leave this thread alone now I promise
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
Send the girl a gift. I recommend one of these: http://www.hawkesbaytoday.co.nz/news/bay-knitters-stitch-pjs-to-save-penguins/1141190/
Apparently as a fundraising effort they are selling penguin toys wearing the donated jerseys. I hear that the toys even squeak/squirm!
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
David, good that you’ve apologised, pity some of your regulars lack maturity.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 12:21 pm
DPF – “I have long held the view that children and politics are best kept apart”
williamsheridan – “Political campaigning is not for kids”
Why and why not?
Politics is an important part of life that far too many young people are oblivious to or apathetic towards. Politics is a representation of how society interacts with one another and I think it is important for children to learn first hand how this works. There is a big difference between exploiting children for political gain and allowing children to take a self-motivated interest in politics, just as there is a world of difference between disciplining a child for questioning religion and allowing your child, of their own free will, to accompany you to church.
I have yet to see a valid reason why political campaigning is harmful to children, only some vague notion that politics is dirty and therefore is not for children. If commentators viciously attack a child shown in a picture then the shame is on them not the child or the child’s parents. Nasty people may attack child movie stars or singers in online forums, that does not (in my view) mean that high profile entertainment is off-limits for children. Obviously some extra safeguards are a good idea but to ban them from an entire sphere of public life because of a few nasty trolls seems a bit over the top.
I hope this girl is not dissuaded from participating in the next election.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
Wow, the quality of the fans really shines through at times like this.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 12:27 pm
# big bruv (9,616) Says:
November 29th, 2011 at 11:23 am
Why would DPF waste an apology on such a nasty and vicious piece of work like Curran.
Nothing in Curran’s past warrants an apology IMHO.
Presumably because DPF believes that he has made an error irrespective of your assessment of Curran’s character. If you make a mistake you apologize, that’s what honest people do.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Yes Mr Williams, I agree that you do, and what might you do about it ?
Well, apologies to you David if you think it inappropriate, and you obviously feel strongly about it. But I stand by my comments. I’m a parent, and one of my boys would wave a placard if asked, and he’s aware that it is a public display that just might lead to wider coverage that he’d have to deal with.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
Typical of the Socialists to expolit little children for their own ends.
Vote:You dont see JK or BE or the other Nats dragging their kids out for photo ops waving their banners
November 29th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
BAHAHAHAHAHA! Wrong…
Vote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John_Key_and_family.jpg
November 29th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
Curran plays it hard, I am sure she can take it and give it just as well.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
RRM – no banners there, so BAHAHA to you!
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 12:52 pm
> You dont see JK…dragging…kids out for photo ops waving their banners
It’s hard to unfurl a banner when you’re lying prostrate.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 12:55 pm
lastmanstanding said “You dont see JK or BE or the other Nats dragging their kids out for photo ops waving their banners”. RRM jumps in and yells “BAHAHAHAHAHA! Wrong” … with a link to a photo.
RRM: Comprehension not your strong point, huh? The photo you linked to was taken on 9th Nov 2008 when John Key first became Prime Minister. No banners to be seen when JK’s family joined him on stage as part of the celebration. None at all. Not even a rosette. Nor a badge.
Jeez – you’re not handling the election result well, are you? No doubt the next few years are going to be a bastard too. And given the news that Key intends to lead National to the polls in 2014, maybe the three after that as well.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
“I didn’t consider the impact on the young person of blogging their photo, and the comments it would attract.”
Did you consider the impact on beneficiaries by your ill-informed comment that 52% of DPB recipients have been on the DPB since they were in their teens? Have you apologised for your mistake?
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
“Key intends to lead National to the polls in 2014″
What he says and what he does doesn’t always correlate.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
@weihana …. Because you don’t have to throw someone off a cliff for them to know that it will hurt when they hit the bottom. Kids are naive, what’s your excuse?
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 1:04 pm
ross : “What he says and what he does doesn’t always correlate.”
The electorate doesn’t agree with you, ross. In fact, you’re coming across as just another bad loser.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
If kids genuinely are interested in politics, I suggest it would be better to teach them logic, reason, and the ability to think and evaluate claims, rather than holding signage on a street corner.
Children need to be able to understand the unintended consequences of policies that on the surface might appear to be a great idea, but in reality the action works against those the policy is directed toward. You could start with the parable of the broken window.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
With great power comes great responsibility
Good on ya dpf, for apologising where you felt necessary.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
Elaycee / Right Now –
That is desperate spin and you know it.
You’re not that thick, or that blinkered, that the similarity between being on stage, televised and photographed at the National Party election night party and holding a party banner needs explaining to you… surely?
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
@RRM
There is a distinct difference between actively campaigning on a streetcorner and appearing on election night as a family, whether that is in celebration of winning or not.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 1:24 pm
lastmanstanding said:
Typical of the Socialists to expolit little children for their own ends.
—————————
I take it that you’ve never watched the Presidential campaigns in the USA…
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 1:29 pm
RRM Dont see a banner VOTE FOR DADDY in the photo.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 1:29 pm
gump
NZ not USA
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 1:32 pm
Keep spinning, last man
(I just wish we could find a way of harnessing the hypocrisy of the right… and using it to generate electricity, or ease world hunger, or something worthy like that. It is a truly awesome, un-tapped energy source.)
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
RRM – I thought my reply was in keeping with your post, let’s not take each other too seriously.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 1:39 pm
The only thing I found distasteful was the title of the original post, “Labour likes them young”, which prompted the resident nasties to compost their usual hate filled diatribes.
Apart from that, big deal. Kids are tougher than they look, and I doubt this kid would have been allowed to read the comment reaction on Kblog. If she was, then her guardians were remiss in their duty. This is an adult site.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
# williamsheridan (33) Says:
November 29th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
@weihana …. Because you don’t have to throw someone off a cliff for them to know that it will hurt when they hit the bottom. Kids are naive, what’s your excuse?
You still have not clarified the harm that will result from children participating in the political process. I’m not saying you have to give me a concrete example where a kid has been harmed. I just want to know what type of harm you expect from kids campaigning on a street corner of their own free will.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Any person who puts any kid on the end of any placard needs to take a long, hard look at themselves. To do so is this digital age, is outrageous. Anyone knows this, and more especially those who are consider themselves to be social media/comms experts.
Vote:There were some serious lessons learnt in this campaign and I venture to suggest this was just one of them
November 29th, 2011 at 1:49 pm
@weihana… I can’t help you with that. Perhaps there is a child psychologist you could ask, or perhaps you have your own therapist who could assist you with that awareness.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
I wonder if Curran will be apologising to all the wealth creators who she advocated taxing? will she apologise for the policies she supports which would hasten the brain drain to Australia? would she apologise had Labour won the election and NZ became a third world country by 2020?
I think not.
She needs to get over herself and realise her and her party are wrong – her own electorate voted National for the first time ever; anyone with half a brain would know people were trying to tell her something.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
V,
There is a distinct difference between actively campaigning on a streetcorner and appearing on election night as a family, whether that is in celebration of winning or not.
What is that difference? Why is one acceptable and the other not. Rational arguments please people. Not just mere assertions.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 2:00 pm
# williamsheridan (34) Says:
November 29th, 2011 at 1:49 pm
@weihana… I can’t help you with that.
You can’t help me by providing the basis of your argument? It’s your argument that something is harmful yet you can’t even explain why it is harmful. Pretty weak argument it would seem.
Perhaps there is a child psychologist you could ask, or perhaps you have your own therapist who could assist you with that awareness.
So you’re not very good at explaining your position but quite adept at providing insult.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
kaykaybee (81) Says:
November 29th, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Any person who puts any kid on the end of any placard needs to take a long, hard look at themselves.
Why?
To do so is this digital age, is outrageous.
Why?
What about kids in advertising? Kids in sports? Kids in movies and television?
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
@Weihana
If you are on the street waving the sign of a political party such as “no asset sales” you should be expected to have knowledge of the subject matter you are advocating and be able to respond to questioning about it.
I put it to you that children (probably under the age of 12-16) have no such knowledge of the subject, sufficient to form an educated view.
If you appear on stage with your family for 5 minutes at the end of an election campaign, you are doing precisely that, standing with your family.
That is the difference.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
‘kaykaybee (81) Says:
November 29th, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Any person who puts any kid on the end of any placard needs to take a long, hard look at themselves. To do so is this digital age, is outrageous. Anyone knows this, and more especially those who are consider themselves to be social media/comms experts.
There were some serious lessons learnt in this campaign and I venture to suggest this was just one of them’
I agree with the above, and I disagree with the idea the because someone else may put them (the photos etc) out there is an excuse for others to see it simply as collaterel. Children are not collaterel, if someone made an ill-informed decision in this case that provides no right for others to jump on the bandwagon in anyway detrimental to the child.
Vote:This debate raises important questions about the use of cyber-space. I recognise Farrar, both with his apology and his recognition of the harm that might be caused, is now taking a more responsible position.
I didn’t read the original blog, the headline didn’t draw my attention as being anything other than salacious, if that were the case all the more reason for Farrar’s apology.
Well, that should get me banned.
November 29th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
V,
Thanks for the explanation. However, I do not expect that people standing on a street waving a political sign should have knowledge of the subject matter and can respond to questioning. Being an adult does not automatically grant someone intelligence or knowledge and there are plenty of adult campaigners who suffer from a below average intellect. Moreover, regardless of one’s intellect there is no obligation to be informed in order to have an opinion. The right to an opinion is not conditional upon one’s level of knowledge or their willingness or ability to respond to questioning.
I agree with you that children are likely to have a simplistic and ignorant view of the world. However, this does not show me how holding signs on a street corner is harmful to them. It is only harmful if some nasty bully tries to pick on them and take advantage of their immaturity in an attempt to humiliate them. But if we didn’t want to risk children experiencing life’s assholes then we wouldn’t even send them to school because that is the most likely venue for it to happen.
If a child has a genuine interest in taking part and they are appropriately supervised then I do not see the harm.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
RRM: “the similarity between being on stage, televised and photographed at the National Party election night party and holding a party banner needs explaining to you”
“…the similarity?” C’mon – you’re drawing a very l-o-n-g bow, aren’t you?
One is a scenario where a newly elected Prime Minister shares his moment of electoral triumph with his family. And good on him for doing so.
The second is a kid (not looking too happy) holding a corflute sign on a heavy traffic street, advocating a Labour Party policy whilst seeking to have Clare Curran elected.
You still want to suggest they are similar? Nah – didn’t think so.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 2:30 pm
Sounds to me like the kid is being used as a human shield.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 2:32 pm
Elaycee,
Why are the children required to be on stage and on television in order for them to “share his moment”? Can they not share the moment off stage and off camera?
The reality is that the family is used to create an image, an image of a man who has the support of his family. It is every bit as much a part of the campaign as holding a sign on a street corner, if not more so. A politician’s public image is what their entire career rests upon and kids appearing on camera with their father is far more effective at shaping that image, and thereby advancing the campaign, than a kid standing on a street corner.
The issue for me is whether the kids participate voluntarily and I’m sure they do because they love and support their father. The same would be true if they were holding a National Party banner.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 2:57 pm
I’m sorry Elaycee you’re right, using your kids for National Party publicity purposes is nothing at all like using your kids for Labour party publicity purposes.
And this is nothing at all to do with creating an image.It’s all about ‘sharing the moment’ as you say:
Vote:http://www3.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/New+Zealanders+Go+Polls+General+Election+PFsjDSaK5RDl.jpg
Oh look, a banner…
November 29th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
Weihana – one pikkie is of a kid campaigning (holding a banner) on behalf of someone else.
The other is of kids (and their Mum) enjoying the victory celebration after their Dad’s campaign. No banners present. None at all. Just a photo of a family enjoying the moment. The first of many…
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 3:06 pm
RRM – are you trying especially hard to be a muppet, or does it just come naturally?
Key’s kids are NOT holding a corflute sign advocating a policy slogan whilst standing on a street corner campaigning on behalf of someone else. Gettit?
Jeez………..
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Elaycee – are you trying especially hard to be a muppet, or does it just come naturally?
Key’s kids were lined up for a photo op in front of a massive NATIONAL banner in a deliberate and blatant attempt to foster some sort of smiling, family-inclusive favourable image for that party. Exactly like the child in the Clare Curran story.
Corflute banners in the foreground, or massive hoardings in the background are the most trivial details in this, ‘gettit’?
Jeez….
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
@weihana….. My point is that when a truth is self-evident I cannot help you with your lack of awareness. You will need help with that an I cannot provide it.
Regarding insulting you, how’s this one: You take yourself far too fucking seriously.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
RRM: Oh shit…. you really don’t get it, do you?
Key’s kids must never stand remotely near any signage whilst standing with their Mum and Dad on election night (2008) because you’ll automatically think they are no different to a kid standing on a busy street holding a corflute sign carrying a political message, during a campaign three years later.
[Gulp...]
You poor bugger.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
williamsheridan says:- “My point is that when a truth is self-evident I cannot help you with your lack of awareness”
And pray tell, what is this evidence that you can so plainly see? Why is it so morally wrong for children to be politically aware and politically active? Don’t you want your kids to be idealistic?
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 5:44 pm
@RRM – the best you could do is a picture of Key and his family after winning the election? That is what is called ‘scraping the barrel’.
Comparing it to someone (ab)using kids as a means to getting votes is lame – they are so different its barely even worth arguing about.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Says DPF………….In the heat of an election campaign, sometimes you over-react and get things wrong..
Hardly downtown Basra , the Alamo or a decent pub brawl, it was just a mediocre general election.
You were correct with your first comments, stick with them, you’re not Peter Dunne ( I hope)
Stop apologising, you’ll still get invited to all the piss ups ,its good to offend lots of people ,its means you’re serious and not just around to piss in every pocket in Wellington.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 6:41 pm
“not just around to piss in every pocket in Wellington”
I always thought that was such a strange expression, why would someone pissing in your pocket be considered flattering? An invitation to violence I would have thought!
Anyway DPF, good on you for confessing your mistake even if the circumstances are not fully apparent.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 7:18 pm
Yes seanmaitland I’m still waiting for someone to adequately explain why Children for Labour Publicity is utterly reprehensible and Children for National Publicity is 100% A-ok.
I think it has something to do with whether the banner is in the child’s hand or behind the child’s head…
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 7:24 pm
Lay off knuckledraggers. DPF has made an apology for something he got wrong, the apology was to Curran and the girl, not the morons here. Reason? I have no idea what it is all about and I don’t wish to know.
Vote:As much as I dislike Curran remember that this blog is Kiwiblog owned by DPF, you are here as a guest.
If you want shit and grit and gosip, try Womans Weekly or No Idea
November 29th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
williamsheridan (35) Says:
November 29th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
@weihana….. My point is that when a truth is self-evident I cannot help you with your lack of awareness. You will need help with that an I cannot provide it.
Self-evident truths can be shown to be self-evident. But your argument is not a self-evident truth. Saying that something is harmful to children is not an example of a self-evident truth. It is an assertion of fact which requires an explanation of how that harm is caused and evidence of such harm occurring. I have only asked you to explain how harm is caused and you seem unable to explain yourself.
Also I do not believe I am taking myself too seriously. I am trying to take your argument seriously.
Vote:November 29th, 2011 at 8:17 pm
I didn’t get banned for my last comment, or even any demerit points – so I’ll try this.
Vote:The Farrar apology was nothing to do with the cut and thrust of politics.
It appears to be an acknowledgement of the rights of privacy for children particularly on the internet, no matter how that came to have have featured there. It may also be recognition that the title to the blog could easily be misunderstood.
November 29th, 2011 at 8:19 pm
Curran is nothing if not a hypocrite. She cries foul about publishing this photo, however she uses a photo of her and her children in the Otago Daily Times on the Monday after the election. Also DPF do you have any idea how old Tim Shields is? Did it ever cross your mind that he is only in his early teens also.
Campaigning is no place for children. If you do not want them used in anyones campaign then keep them away from it.
Vote:November 30th, 2011 at 5:10 am
The Green Party have no issues with putting kids on posters regardless of being in the ‘digital age’. And it wins votes. So evidently they’ve weighed the risks and decided that the end justifies the means.
Vote:November 30th, 2011 at 7:15 am
Not only kids they put on posters was it? though I’m picking it wasn’t them who put the “Left the wife for a hottie” additions to Kris Faafoi’s posters in Porirua
Vote: