Cunliffe did know after all!!

July 24th, 2014 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

The Herald originally reported:

But the Labour leader threatens to be distracted by internal ill-discipline and criticisms over his judgment, including the holiday itself and a meeting last week with a prominent New Zealander given on charges of performing an indecent act.

Mr Cunliffe confirmed to the Herald last night that he had arranged for the person – whose case has been the topic of media coverage – to meet a Labour candidate but said he had no idea about the controversial background until yesterday.

“If I had known of the suggestion, no such meeting would have taken place.”

But Newstalk ZB reported:

Mr Cunliffe admits a prominent New Zealander’s possible sexual offending had been raised with him before he met with the man in Queenstown last week.

The Labour leader says the meeting went ahead because no proof had been supplied.

It would have taken one phone call to find out. One could have had a staffer ask the person in question, or pretty much anyone in Queenstown. But they wanted his help with the local Labour candidate, so they decided to do a don’t ask, don’t tell policy.

Now I’m not advocating the man in question should be a pariah. But this episode suggests that Cunliffe’s apology to Rape Crisis for being a man was easy words, but not action.

I mean just a few days after you make national headlines for apologising for being a man to Rape Crisis, and saying we have a rape culture in New Zealand, you go and meet a prominent New Zealander who has plead guilty in court to sexual assault but got name suppression for it. And you admit you did hear about it prior to meeting him, but ignored it.

Tags: , ,

50 Responses to “Cunliffe did know after all!!”

  1. JMS (330 comments) says:

    Watch the MSM continue to ignore this story.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. tas (625 comments) says:

    The apology was preemptive: I’m sorry for associating with sex offenders… next week.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. NK (1,244 comments) says:

    It would have taken one phone call to find out. One could have had a staffer ask the person in question, or pretty much anyone in Queenstown. But they wanted his help with the local Labour candidate, so they decided to do a don’t ask, don’t tell policy.

    Has he not heard of Google? Perhaps Kim Dotcom could tell him what it is. After that, he can teach him how to use it. Even IT maestro, Clare Curran, could assist.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. oldpark (328 comments) says:

    Next it will be from Cunliffe”.I wish I had never been born “.I am a chronic cant help myself, being such a liar.Sorry possums or is it diddums.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Keeping Stock (10,339 comments) says:

    FFS – all he had to do was get one of his staffers to give Rodney Hide a call. Once again, Cunliffe is step-by-step backing away from an unequivocal statement he made at the beginning of the week. He simply cannot be trusted.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Pete George (23,562 comments) says:

    Watch the MSM continue to ignore this story.

    They don’t appear to have been interested. The two parts to this story came from Audrey Young and Barry Soper. I advised them of the significant difference between Cunliffe’s claims on Wednesday, but they don’t seem to have done anything with it.

    More details here: Cunliffe’s conflicting claims about Queenstown meetings

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Don the Kiwi (1,754 comments) says:

    The Obama of the South – an inveterate liar.

    The silly prick can’t help himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    He should have taken my advice and shoved his red scarf in his gob.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    How did we get so lucky???

    I thought Shearer was a joke who would guarantee National a win. But this fucking guy hahaha

    Is Cunliffe trying to destroy labour? Make it a 15% party. It would ensure we have a far far left govt one day with the nutjob greens playing a huge part..

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    It appears that he who cannot be named is paying for some PR to whitewash his offending. He is firstly blaming the victim an secondly trying to get sympathy due to unfortunate person issue unrelated to this case.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Rich Prick (1,701 comments) says:

    “The Labour leader says the meeting went ahead because no proof had been supplied.”

    Ummm, perhaps this is proof enough?

    “a prominent New Zealander who has plead guilty in court to sexual assault”

    Cunliffe is outdoing himself in the stupid stakes.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. markm (114 comments) says:

    Cunliffe said he knew of the claims but no proof was provided.

    How does this gel with Labour’s policy of guilty on accusation , you prove your innocent.
    Clearly Mr Cunliffe doesn’t agree with his parties policies.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. NK (1,244 comments) says:

    How well is McCarten going!! The guy is so good he’s a freak.

    Gee, that appointment worked out well. How did it go – “he’s going to sort them out”; “he takes no prisoners”; he’ll crack some heads and get discipline and focus back into Labour” blah, blah, blah.

    He’s paid by the taxpayer. Can we get our money back?

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. OTGO (549 comments) says:

    As I said before, enough of Cunliffe’s fuck ups already. Lets put some heat on the Greens. NZ cannot afford to have them becoming any more relevant than they already are let alone become a major party at the expense of Labour. I know the odd Labour voter who doesn’t like National, can’t bring themselves to vote Labour this time and in the absence of anything else will vote Green because well you know, how could it hurt to vote for the environment?

    Fools.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,903 comments) says:

    This must be DotKrim’s much vaunted ‘bombshell.’

    He did know! The dummpkopf did know. I tolja so.

    Oh shit!

    Wrong bloke.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Manolo (13,768 comments) says:

    Comrade Matt McCarten is performing his saboteur job much better than expected.
    These two, the tax-cheat unionist and the third-rate lawyer Greg Presland, aka Micky Savage, are beautifully undermining Silent T‘s campaign.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. alex Masterley (1,517 comments) says:

    Mr Cunliffe’s forehead will be red from all the face palms!

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. kiwi in america (2,450 comments) says:

    Cunliffe achieves a rare double – turning off male voters with his apology for being a man then turning off women voters for showing that the man apology was mere posturing by being seen with NZ’s Rolf Harris AFTER he knew of the allegations and then compounding the error by lying about it to the Herald.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    Masterley

    It certainly wouldn’t ever get red from embarrassment.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. slernz (33 comments) says:

    More lies and untruths from the son of a preacher man Cunliffe… his father must be so proud!

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. AJP (20 comments) says:

    Just thinking out loud.
    Could it be that McCarten is doing exactly what he needs to do by wrecking the Labour campaign hence making KDC the kingmaker in September.
    Afterall, McCarten and Leila going way way back together.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Mark (1,488 comments) says:

    I have no issue with Cunlife spending timeout with his Kids before the election campaign. In fact I see it as a.positive rather than a.negative. apologizing for being a.man is simply stupid and meeting with the prominant NZ sex offender who everyone with access to the Internet can identify in a couple of seconds shows a spectacular lack of judgement.

    We are running a.sweep in the office on the % age of the party vote labour will get. The popular numbers are ugly for labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. JMS (330 comments) says:

    then turning off women voters for showing that the man apology was mere posturing by being seen with NZ’s Rolf Harris

    I’m afraid Cunliffe’s going to get away with that one, the media just won’t touch it.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Unity (584 comments) says:

    And so it goes on – and on!! At first I thought Cunliffe was perhaps ‘unfortunate’ with the gaffes he’s made but now it seems to be an epidemic of giant proportions. Has he no common sense at all? I almost feel sorry for him and the position he’s in because he’s never going to get into power now, unless a miracle happens. He seems to be authoring his own destruction. However, as said above, we don’t now want the disenchanted Labour voters turning to the Greens. They are just toxic, full stop.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. David Garrett (7,272 comments) says:

    This almost unbelievable…after defending his apology for being a man he then says it was a mistake…then he defends his skiing holiday on the pretty reasonable grounds that he wanted to spend time with his kids before what will no doubt be a gruelling election campaign…then he says that was a mistake too, and he shouldn’t have gone on holiday when the polls were so bad..

    But this latest one is in a league of its own…at the very least he has been wilfully blind to the identity of the “prominent New Zealander” (was he a forward or a back, I cant recall). As several commenters have said, finding out who he was would have been very easy…and especially in a small place like Queenstown, where there cannot be that many “prominent New Zealanders”

    The man not only doesn’t know what the hell he is sorry for and not sorry for, but is a liar as well…

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    Labour are claiming media bias yet none will get stuck into Cunliffe about this meeting. They should be asking him what the meeting was meant to be about when he accepted it. When he refuses to answer he should be asked if the sexual predator tried blaming his victim.

    I am also annoyed that no other MP in National will question Cunliffe the same way to expose him hypocrisy. Those who know who this predator is can guess why. This is not the only case of judges going soft on sexual predators and kiddie fiddlers who have the right connects or even may belong to the same club.

    Why will not one not one MP in Parliament clearly state that the law on permanent name suppression after a guilty plea or conviction be changed. None in Parliament responded to Sensible Sentencing Trust questionnaire. ACT and the Conservatives did.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. David Garrett (7,272 comments) says:

    OTGO: Absolutely. While Labour is simply an unconvincing shambles, at least they have a history of recognising the Greens for the dangerous bastards they are, and steering well clear of giving them any power.

    There is now a serious risk of the Greens becoming the major opposition party with the chance – depending on how the chips fall on 20 September – being part of government. If Labour gets – say – 20% and the Greens 20%, it would be pretty much impossible to keep them out of cabinet…and THAT is bloody scary…

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    You just can’t make this shit up…

    And yet Cunliffe would want us believe he is fit to lead the country????

    Pffttt….. I wouldn’t want him running a school tuck shop.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Pdubyah (22 comments) says:

    i thought that the identity of “person F” was and is widely known in the community, and they admit that it’s ruined him locally. Suppression is from publication, not from me telling you verbally. For the local MP not to have know, or be aware of, and then to kind of dodge it by saying nothing can be know about them is a bit fanciful.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Unity (584 comments) says:

    I agree that the Judges ae soft on certain people ‘with connections’. However, I think name suppression is often granted when it could be detrimental to the victim. Having said that, no one would ever condemn the victim so I agree that name suppression should be lifted after both a guilty plea and a conviction.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Unity (584 comments) says:

    We both posted at the same time Pdubyah so I didn’t see your comment about the identity of ‘person F’. I feel a certain satisfaction that he’s been nruined locally. Serve him right.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    Does any lawyer know how the name suppression works? I understand anyone who published anything that identifies someone who has name suppressed is guilty. I assume that includes talk back. However, I am not sure about telling people separately. I wonder how it applies at a public meeting. How about at the local pub?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. David Garrett (7,272 comments) says:

    Pdubyah: (Where do they get them…) You are absolutely right…suppression orders prohibit publication, not telling someone…and even if they DID extend to telling someone, how could that ever be policed?

    Disclosure: Just in case there is someone here who was in a coma in September 2010 and who doesn’t know, I myself benefited from a suppression order in 2005. People will make their own judgments on whether the circumstances of my offence (forgery on a passport application 25 years earlier) are the same as or similar to those of the “prominent New Zealander”

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. David Garrett (7,272 comments) says:

    Chuck: thinking about it, ( I am not a criminal lawyer so don’t know for sure) telling someone MIGHT breach a suppression order…the word “publication” in the law of defamation includes both telling someone AND writing it…whether the prohibition on “publication” has the same meaning in the criminal law I just don’t know…Graeme E or some other wise chap will no doubt come and tell us…In the meantime, best be cautious…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    The Cun’liffe has apologised for the sins of all men, and all those who believe in His apology shall not remain guilty but shall receive a free pass.
    I suspect He was just there to give the repentant sinner absolution, or perform some miracle or other.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Yvette (2,819 comments) says:

    In view of Cunliffe now rephrasing his “I am sorry” theatrics before Women’s Refuge, and this revelation that he lied about his Queenstown lunch date, can anyone please tell me exactly why the Wellington Young Feminist’s are running a petition demanding Prime Minister John Key apologise to Tania Billingsley?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Paul Marsden (998 comments) says:

    You have to concede that these “yeh/nah” moments from Cunliffle, are highly entertaining. God help us all if this twat takes the reigns of power in NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. wreck1080 (3,912 comments) says:

    Caught lying?

    To me, he was lying when he said he didn’t know.

    He is playing with words when he says he was told but didn’t have it confirmed.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. tvb (4,421 comments) says:

    Suppression Orders are for cowards. The problem is they create rumours about totally innocent people. No doubt people reading this log will be trying guess who and possibly defaming someone.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Chuck Bird (4,883 comments) says:

    tvb, Only stupid people will get it wrong. I guess that why Cunliffe could not be sure as all the people he could ask would either be stupid or out to set him up.

    This guy should man up as more an more people will get to know who he is.

    There should be an investigation if the judge knew the offender. We need a law change to make it a legal requirement a judge to declare how much he knows any party unless he chooses to recuse himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. backster (2,171 comments) says:

    MS Billingsley, Besley, Henare and Logie will be further outraged at his duplicity and will be demanding he apologise and say sorry.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Yvette (2,819 comments) says:

    There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don’t know.
    – Donald Rumsfeld
    , and now David Cunliffe :-)

    Now that he knows, will David return the bottle of wine he was gifted at this Queenstown lunch meeting?
    Or perhaps he could donate it to Rape Crisis

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Pete George (23,562 comments) says:

    There’s been a few mentions of a bottle of wine, I must have missed that one, what’s the story with that?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Paul Marsden (998 comments) says:

    You seriously have to wonder if Cunliffe is suffering from some neurological disorder or, that he’s blessed with a special kind of stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    I won’t be sorry when he resigns !

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    Pete George

    There’s been a few mentions of a bottle of wine

    It’s the new Trev’s Heineken bottle of the Labour party !

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Yvette (2,819 comments) says:

    There’s been a few mentions of a bottle of wine, I must have missed that one, what’s the story with that?

    If anyone tells you they are probably legally bound to kill you at the same time.
    And maybe theirself as well

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. RF (1,398 comments) says:

    Paul Marsden. 3.31pm. Like father.. Like son. I have heard from a very reliable source that the Rev was at times a very confused person who on more than one occasion is said to have stuffed up names whilst officiating at Weddings & Funerals.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Paul Marsden (998 comments) says:

    I strongly believe that there is something not quite right with the way this man thinks and speaks. There is no doubt in my mnd that he is berefit of the ability and/or, skills to lead this country. IMO, his conduct of recent times is beyond a joke and that he needs to be shoulder tapped by someone in authority, to step aside before he subjects himself to anymore, personal ridicule and contempt. The ridicule will not affect him, but it will certainly affect those close to him.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Reid (16,454 comments) says:

    The ridicule will not affect him

    I think it will and it has and this explains why he’s acting as he is.

    It’s got to him because for the very first time in his life he can’t dismiss it in his own mind as a few disaffected supporters. Consequently he’s rattled to the core.

    This is why he makes basic mistakes such as repeating past behaviours like saying one thing to one audience and the opposite to another. This has worked for him in the past and because he’s rattled it’s an instinctual reaction to which he falls back on even while knowing intellectually he’ll be found out.

    The recent denial he knew who this NZ Rolf Harris guy he had dinner with was is only the most recent example of this dynamic which has been operating ever since his wave of elation on winning yet another thing, the leadership – failed to win him the adoration he used to think he deserved as of right.

    He no longer believes this consequently what we’re witnessing is a dead man walking in the shell of his own pysche who doesn’t know what to do because he’s tried everything he knows and none of it has worked.

    Obviously, witnessing this is distressing to anyone human notwithstanding he represents what to most of us is the wrong side of politics. Who cares about that when you look at what this guy is going through.

    I don’t know what the answer is but I hope he can put things into perspective when this is all over and rebuild himself. At the moment I assess the chances of that happening as 50/50.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote