Cunliffe meets sex offender with name suppression

July 21st, 2014 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

says his Queenstown ski holiday has left him “recharged” and ready to take the battle to Prime Minister John Key in the two-month countdown to election day.

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 name suppression 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.”

This is staggering in its incompetence.

You go to rape crisis, apologise for being a man, talking about the rape culture in New Zealand, and then go out to dinner (my understanding, or at least meet with) with a man who pleaded guilty in court to forcing himself onto a woman and got name suppression because of his status.

The identify of the Queenstown resident is not a closely guarded secret. It has even been published in Australia. Rodney Hide has been campaigning for the identity of the man to be published in Parliament.

One can only take David Cunliffe at his word that he didn’t know, but I find it impossible to believe no one on his staff knew. The identity is an open secret. Either the meeting/dinner was not arranged through his staff, or there is something very very wrong in his office.

Here’s the report of the offending:

Over a three-year period, he visited their home half a dozen times, but always with someone else.

On the day of the incident, she was about to leave to do some shopping with her daughter, she said.

While her daughter went to get the mail from the end of the long drive, the man followed her inside and “he just grabbed hold of me from behind”, she said.

“He was tall and towered over me. I said: ‘What the hell are you doing?’

“And he said: ‘But you are so lovely’. It was horrible. His hands were all over me,” the woman said.

“He kept pushing his tongue in my mouth, pulling my head back and sticking his tongue down into my mouth and I was trying to push him off.

“His hands were all around my back, his hands down the back of my knickers.”

He confessed he had always liked her.

“I was totally shocked. It took me by surprise. But I wasn’t scared because I knew my daughter was about.

“I was trying to push him off and he took my hand and put it on his what’s-it and he said to me: ‘This is what you are doing to me’.

The offender, who has political links, was given name suppression. He should not have got name suppression.

Even the offender says his identity is an open secret:

Despite name suppression, the man said everyone in his home town knew he was the “prominent man” in the paper. “It has taken away all my livelihood,” he said.

“Even with name suppression I got fired from a job because a guy had heard it was me,” he said.

He believed he was unfairly targeted because he was a household name.

Again I find it almost beyond belief that David Cunliffe or his staff did not know. And they were also meeting the local Labour candidate.  How could she not know? Again, this was an open secret.

Tags:

78 Responses to “Cunliffe meets sex offender with name suppression”

  1. jakejakejake (139 comments) says:

    I wonder how many National MPs also had dinners, railed prostitutes etc with this individual.

    [DPF: The key thing is whether the dinners were before or after he pled guilty in court and the offending became widely known]

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 27 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Rich Prick (1,724 comments) says:

    That certainly puts a certain glass of milk into perspective, doesn’t it. This is a serious lack of judgment for a wannabe PM though.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. tas (646 comments) says:

    Open secret or not, I think the problem here is name suppression laws, rather than Cunliffe. There are many sex offenders who we cannot avoid because they are protected by name suppression.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    And they were also meeting the local Labour candidate. How could she not know?

    To be fair to Liz Craig ‘local’ may not mean local. Queenstown is in one far corner of a very big electorate (Clutha-Southland). She may not have many local business connections or much public knowledge in Queenstown.

    I don’t see how Cunliffe would have done this if he knew, I’d trust his word that he didn’t know. It looks like an unfortunate coincidence for him. He’s not making things easy for himself but this may be sheer bad luck (with an emphasis on bad).

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Keeping Stock (10,429 comments) says:

    Surely someone from inside Labour had a discrete word with Rodney Hide or checked a certain Australian radio jock’s website when they saw what was on Cunliffe’s calendar. Seems to me has has been hung out to dry from within.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    yeah right, Cunliffe didn’t know, ..just like Shonkey had never heard of dotcom

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 30 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Chuck Bird (4,924 comments) says:

    Here is a chance for Cunliffe to redeem himself if he has any balls. All as he has to do is name this sexual predator in Parliament and state that Labour advocates a law change that all sexual predators kiddy fiddlers who have been found or pleaded guilty to be named unless the victim requests name suppression.

    The case is not the only case. There is kiddy fiddling Hawkes Bay lawyer recently reported in Herald also has name suppression.

    If some MP with balls names these bottom feeders the law will have to change.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. flash2846 (289 comments) says:

    What I find “beyond belief” is how he could have grabbed, held, kissed, spoke, unzipped, barred up, forced her hand etc. etc. in such a short space of time with only two arms. Just saying.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    bad news flash, your post is a perfect illustration of what is called ‘rape culture’

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. contheneo (27 comments) says:

    If you google said person’s name, which I won’t post, there is a story at the bottom of page one of google about the issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    Here is a chance for Cunliffe to redeem himself if he has any balls. All as he has to do is name this sexual predator in Parliament…

    I don’t think it’s right to circumvent legal name suppression using parliamentary privilege.

    It would take more gumption for Cunliffe to redeem himself, like talk to the offender and convince him to forego the suppression and front up publicly. And to admit responsibility and denounce his behaviour, that’s his best way of recovering a little bit of respect.

    If thsi happened it would really earn Cunliffe some credit.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. mikenmild (11,719 comments) says:

    Sorry, you are attacking him for not knowing the identity of a person subject to a name suppression order?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Fentex (1,037 comments) says:

    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 name suppression on charges of performing an indecent act.

    I think it’s become evident Labour is so fractured opponents of Cunliffe are now deliberately sabotaging it’s campaign. I doubt he can rescue himself because he has no firm ground or support behind him to work from. Strong stances or policy will not help him because people like Mallard will just go and make the party look foolish with distracting nonsense about Moas.

    Who could believe an experienced politico like Mallard isn’t well aware of how such a thing distracts from his parties game plan and message? Half of Labour doesn’t want to win the election.

    The question now, for anyone concerned, is will it be in any better shape in three years? And how deeply will the wounding of it’s activist base be as passionate people eager to work are disgusted and driven away by bickering?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. hmmokrightitis (1,595 comments) says:

    If you live in Queenstown (I dont, a mate does) or are politically connected in Wellington, you know the name. SilentT knows the name. SilentT is chasing money, hence the contact.

    Does that make it OK miken?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. thedavincimode (6,872 comments) says:

    As much as I find it amusing that cunners has returned to his station to yet another smack in the chops, isn’t it really just a bit of a beat up?

    I can’t recall the circumstances, but I can recall staunch defence of National Ministers who have been similarly unwittingly embarrassed. Are we expecting our politicians to know the identity of every criminal offender, including those the subject of name suppression orders.

    We already know his war room is staffed by idiots. Sure, cunners might be telling a porky, but it’s entirely plausible that he didn’t know the background given how out of touch he is.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Sofia (866 comments) says:

    When Cunliffe knows this man well enough to reputedly accept a bottle of wine from him, why does he not know that much else about an man he reportedly has lunch with?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Sofia (866 comments) says:

    And if the meeting was friendship or prior association, why did Cunliffe not know?

    And if advocacy on some matter, does the Judge’s ruling mean the person may not tell Cunliffe the position the meeting may place him in?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Fentex (1,037 comments) says:

    The more I think about it (and I don’t enjoy doing so) the more I wonder about the business of politics. Cunliffe seems like a terribly incompetent fool with the number of bad decisions he seems to make.

    Yet there seems no particular reason such a person should be so foolish. One may or may not like or agree with him on anything but he’s roughly as smart and experienced as any other politician of his generation.

    So I wonder how come he seems to commit so many faux pas? And it occurs to me perhaps he doesn’t as compared to others, perhaps his words, choices, miss-steps and blunders are more prominent and promoted because he has an unusual number of enemies – not only across the benches where they are expected to be but behind his back.

    I wonder if he’s not any-more prone to political folly than others but suffers inordinately because he has few friends and overwhelming numbers of foes.

    Collins tells lies about police statistics, misleads the house about her actions abroad, abuses her public office to aid her husbands business and her party stands by her until the indignation fades as stale news. Cunliffe takes a weekend to ski and is excoriated.

    It makes me wonder, how much of all this oh so breathlessly terrible things Cunliffe does happen all the time to politicians of all stripes but aren’t as effectively publicised because there usually isn’t a civil war within parties being fought?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. flash2846 (289 comments) says:

    @Dean Papa

    Sorry pal, there is no such thing as a “rape culture” in New Zealand. Invented bullshit that I wont be buying into.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. metcalph (1,434 comments) says:

    The offender got name suppression primarily because he had plead guilty on the grounds that he would get a diversion or a discharge without conviction. Undoubtedly the prosecution could have refused to accept such a qualified plea but they screwed up and so his version of events became the basis for sentencing (in other words, a more serious version of events has not been proved or admitted in court).

    I’ve also seen complaints about the media asking the offender for comments about other people in his field facing criminal charges. IMO the journalists concerned know full well what he got up to and are trying to provoke a meltdown.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. thedavincimode (6,872 comments) says:

    The other amusing feature of cunners’ return from his sojourn on the piste is his defense of his holiday, including that being crook in bed somehow mitigated the decision he made to take it in the first place.

    Let’s just put cunners’ decision into context. He’s the boss (“I’m in charge around here”) and his party is fucked. He has singlehandedly led it from one fuckup to another. It’s all down to him. His position as leader if not his political career is in the balance. “oooh” he wails … “I’ve been working my butt off … 18 hours a day … oooh … my kids won’t see much of me [my emphasis – telling really] … I make no apology [lol] … [wail] traitors … [wail]”.

    Key presents him with a week without competition in the public eye. So he fucks off on holiday. One week that could have been used to try and salvage something out of the mess he has created.

    To those of you familiar with the real world, ask yourselves this question: How many CEOs in the middle of a crisis or critical business opportunity would do this, irrespective of how hard they may have thought they had been working? How many professional advisers working on something of critical importance that only they could deal with would have done this?

    This is the most important 2 months of his political life and cunners fucks off on holiday, despite the fact that after that, Xmas is just around the corner.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    What a pathetic beat up DPF. The offender had name supression and therefore it was not known who he was.

    Do you expect all politicians to refrain from meeting with anyone, just in case they are an offender with name suppression?

    Details of suppression orders are not passed on to MP’s, and therefore they have no way of knowing who is involved.

    The offenders identity has only become widely known within the last 10 days – to gain the information of who he is, one must break the law – are you suggesting that our MP’s should break the law to source their information, or are you suggesting that they should listen to idol gossip and base their actions upon that?

    This is pathetic and a sign of desperation at its best. If Cunliffe had come out and said he refused to meet with the man, you’d have had a go at him for seeking the information illegally, or being a gossip monger!

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 26 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. hj (7,066 comments) says:

    Dean Papa (688 comments) says:
    July 21st, 2014 at 9:21 am

    bad news flash, your post is a perfect illustration of what is called ‘rape culture’
    ………
    It’s called healthy scepticism.
    “Skepticism or scepticism (see American and British English spelling differences) is generally any questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts,[1] or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere.[2]” Wikipedia.
    It doesn’t mean yay or nay but are open minded. The “rape culture” proponents are opposing scepticism.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Nostalgia-NZ (5,279 comments) says:

    Why the f… would Cunliffe name him Chuck, to keep you happy and get dragged before the Courts – that would be bad judgement. On another aspect MPs are the face of the Government and access to them is not denied anybody, if that’s not the case I would like for someone to explain why it isn’t. Rodney Hide took up the case of Watson and when leaving Parliament commented that he’d wished he done more, or been able to do more to help him. Prisoners, ex prisoners, psychiatric patients and ex patients are entitled to access to MPs either by correspondence or meeting with them. Arthur Thomas was visited by MPs in prison before his conviction was expunged. I don’t know the details of this meeting, or the person involved but I wouldn’t care that he met with any MP from any party – that’s part of their duty to the public. If there is some other issue about the meeting I’m unaware that it has been revealed.

    Just to put a clearer perspective on this. Banks and others met with Dotcom, several MPs from both Labour and National met with Liu despite information that he’d been involved in ‘graft’ in China to the point of giving evidence of giving a Government official bribe money.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. freedom101 (509 comments) says:

    At last Cunliffe has something that he does need to apologise for, but will he? Almost certainly not.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Sporteone (51 comments) says:

    Knowing who this predator is and also his involvement previously with the Labour party, I can see why Cunliffe would want to meet him.

    What is worse is that he professes that he didn’t know who this person was. It is all around parliament and his name has been openly discussed. Cunliffe is just hoping, making the statement that he didn’t know who he was will be accepted by the public of New Zealand. Bullocks, I say. Maybe Cunners should also apologise for the offending.

    What is even worse here is that it is obvious that the victim in the matter was not informed of the deal before it all occurred. She most certainly would not have agreed to it. The offence he pleaded to, does not even represent the crime he committed. He should have been charged with attempted sexual violation or at least indecent assault. Again, here we have the Police looking after the boys.

    If his name was published, I have a sneaking suspicion, from what I know, that many other women might come forward and make complaints about his actions when he was a prominent New Zealander. I am sure he would feel the backlash of every New Zealand women after that.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. flipper (4,205 comments) says:

    thedavincimode (6,503 comments) says:
    ********

    Excellent analysis.

    To answer your question, if a public company CEO did that, the Board would deliver instant termination.

    In CminusTs’ position, all the apologists talk about “refreshing for the final push” is delusional rubbish.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    to gain the information of who he is, one must break the law

    Apparently not. I’ve seen legal opinion that says the suppression order is against publishing the name, not searching for it or reading it.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. twofish (102 comments) says:

    As already mentioned on kiwiblog today, the entire Labour caucus didn’t actually stand behind their elected Leader, but sat and watched him hold up two fish in Parliament – yep, that Leader – Number 2 of 3 this term.
    So how many stood around this time without telling Leader 3, Cunliffe, what he was doing in having lunch with, and reportedly accepting a bottle of wine from the Man With No Name.

    Tania Billingsley attacks McCully and John Key for appearing to be uncaring in regard to her plight. What now of Cunliffe who appears unconcerned enough to not ask his colleagues for any knowledge of the offender, who all along was said to be politically connected.

    Wouldn’t it have been smart to try and protect himself, because the Judge’s ruling sure as hell hasn’t. Should Cunliffe demand an apology from the Judge?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Fentex (848 comments) says:
    July 21st, 2014 at 9:42 am

    We think it is terrible because that is how the media, and blog commentators with personal agendas wish us to think.

    Having dumbed down society sufficiently that not many question, as you have the facts behind the acts. Take Cunliffe’s apology – so many commentators forgot to point out the words “right now”, which came after the apology. Those two words put the apology in context – when facing an audience of women who had been the victims of abuse – he felt sorry for being a member of the sex responsible for that abuse. He wasn’t giving a generic apology for being male – however that is how the media and bloggers used it – to meet their own particular agenda – to build the image of the ‘personality’ by destroying the image of any opposition. The ‘personality’ will win the election, but not because of what he can do for the country – but because his followers have made us believe that there is no one else that can do it. Fact is, there are others, I am not convinced Cunliffe is one of them, but I’ve come to that conclusion from my own knowledge, and not because the media tells me what to think.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. dime (10,108 comments) says:

    lol love how the usuals are grasping at straws. “he had name suppression, who would know”

    its like you’re part of a rugby club and someone gets done. EVERYONE in the club knows who it is.

    its not like we are demanding he resigns etc like the idiot left would be if it was a national mp..

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Nostalgia-NZ (5,279 comments) says:

    Actually good on Cunliffe and Key for taking a break with their children during the holidays, a good example set by both of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Pete George (22,687 comments) says:
    July 21st, 2014 at 10:01 am

    So you would have our politicians believe what they read on a blog? God save us!

    The man had name suppression – therefore the correct and legal thing to do is to respect the Courts decision – especially if you are a community leader and meant to be a role model for the citizens of the country. Leading by example – the example you want to give is that Leaders should disrespect court decisions and go off on tangents of their own.

    This was a no win situation for Cunliffe – no matter what he’d done it would have been wrong. He was better to stick with the correct and legal path, than to deviate from it and give the vultures even more pickings. Damned if he did, and damned if he didn’t.

    But do remember this thread – are you 100% sure none of your team have met with named suppressed offenders? ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    dime (9,350 comments) says:
    July 21st, 2014 at 10:12 am

    I didn’t know, and none of my colleagues knew – none of my family knew, and judging from the amount of comments on here of people wanting to know, there were many people that didn’t know. In fact, just when did you find out Dime? Have you known from the time of the offence?

    If I remember correctly, our Prime Minister was sitting in the same stand as the ‘offender’ at one of the international matches – I bet he didn’t know then either! This is a pathetic beat up – nothing more, nothing less. I do not support the name suppression but to try and ‘fit’ it in this way is school yard stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. wreck1080 (3,961 comments) says:

    I wouldn’t say there is a thing such as ‘rape’ culture.

    Rather, it is the protection given by judges to celebrities and high profile people who do bad things. Sometimes those crimes are of a sexual nature but not always.

    Sure, I understand name suppression used to protect victims — but, to protect celebrity criminals? That is odious!

    Aaron Gilmore was perhaps correct in his belief that some people are more important and can expect special societal privileges . Our judges certainly seem to back up that view.

    Regarding Cunliffe, he is just a big joke. No surprises there.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. edhunter (552 comments) says:

    Of course this is just a smear campaign by National & Shonkey with the help of a former MP & a complicit media to under mine the only man capable of singlehandly turning around NZ’s economy….

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Sporteone (15 comments) says:
    July 21st, 2014 at 9:59 am

    If his name was published, I have a sneaking suspicion, from what I know, that many other women might come forward..

    First you are saying that the suppression has been widely discussed, and is known in parliament, except since the name was published in Australia, parliament has been in recess.

    Then you say that if the name was published other women would come forward (knowing what you know!) – make up your mind – either it is well known, and therefore Cunliffe should have known, in which case those ‘other women’ would also know – OR it isn’t well known, there therefore Cunliffe may not have been aware of it, as well as the ‘other women’. You can’t have it both ways sunshine.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. flipper (4,205 comments) says:

    Sporteone (15 comments) says:

    July 21st, 2014 at 9:59 am

    Knowing who this predator is and also his involvement previously with the Labour party,

    ****

    Labour is a dinosaur that should be extinct. But the sporty one is just a troll because it knows full well the man’s background, and it is not, I regret to say, Labour.
    A little truth here would help, would it not?

    In 2014 he is very much yesterday’s man, and one who has been through tragic events. He was once a “blade”, but never of much real world intelligence. But that would not excuse his actions if they were to be proved (which they will now never be, one way or the other) true.

    The claims and demands now being made are now gratuitous. Buy a billboard, post a claim, face the consequences, or shut up, and let it go. And apropos the idiots who demand that some failed MP should use privilege, once cans are opened, worms have a nasty habit of uncontrolled wiggling here and there. Only a desperate independent MP would try. And if they did, Mr Speaker’s actions would place all media in a quandary …..

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Chuck Bird (4,924 comments) says:

    “Cunliffe, what he was doing in having lunch with, and reportedly accepting a bottle of wine from the Man With No Name.”

    @twofish

    Have you a link or a source please?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Maggy Wassilieff (449 comments) says:

    “to gain the information of who he is, one must break the law

    Apparently not. I’ve seen legal opinion that says the suppression order is against publishing the name, not searching for it or reading it.”

    Perhaps we need another legal opinion here….The Whaleoil Blog is stating that you can not give out any information that could lead to someone identifying a person protected byb a suppression order.

    I fear I have broken the law and, even worse, have knowingly led the husband astray.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    Something I read last week is that there was a rumour an ex Member of Parliament was involved in something and had name suppression. I think it was a journalist who said that politicians had a keen interest in whether it might be from their party.

    I would presume from that that the parties would all make sure they knew. Maybe that was too late for Cunliffe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Kelly (29 comments) says:

    If Cunliffe was smart enough *please wait while I finish laughing* he can spin this to be positive. He can stand up with Parliamentary Privilege surrounding him name him and highlight that this was a mistake due to the name suppression laws protecting low life like this and he is determined to clamp down on such so that all are aware of who they are meeting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Chuck Bird (4,924 comments) says:

    PG, I think you could be in breach of the name suppression order.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Fentex (1,037 comments) says:

    “he had name suppression, who would know”

    Out of curiosity I went for a look – one well phrased search query promptly found an Australian published article that’s preview claimed to name the person.

    I recall a similar matter about five ~ six years ago where such a search was not so effective at locating a foreign publication about a locally suppressed name.

    Suppression of information is a difficult ambition today. Evidence seems to suggest muddying the waters with overwhelming amounts of conflicting accounts is the more sure way to protect people from the consequences of knowledge about them.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. backster (2,184 comments) says:

    I look forward to watching the TV political programs this week as Tania Billingsley attempted rape victim?? and Rape refuge CEO
    Henare demand that Cunliffe resign for associating with a convicted predator on females.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. jakejakejake (139 comments) says:

    I remember another fellow who got suppression recently for choking out his wife, kicking in a door and screaming abuse at her. I wonder how many MPs have dinner with him. I’d guess John Key has probably more times than he can remember.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. twofish (102 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird 10:27am – wine reference?

    DAVID CUNLIFFE DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT THE NAME SUPPRESSED SEX OFFENDER
    by Cameron Slater on July 21, 2014 at 10:00am
    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/
    and earlier

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    I presume the Herald know how far they can go. Hide’s original column included:

    I know something of this case. I certainly know the attacker. And I know some of our leading politicians know him and know, too, of his attitude and behaviour towards women. It was a topic of conversation when I was in Parliament. There are possibly other victims. I know one but she will never come forward.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11292524

    If it was a one off out of character incident by someone known only in Queenstown Hide wouldn’t have given it the attention he has.

    He did apologise in his next column for puttng Maggie Barry on the spot.

    The nature of this “prominent” New Zealander’s attack, and his reputation, suggests to me that he is a serial offender. Our system leaves his other possible victims suffering in silence. It also fails to warn his future victims. That’s how Harris was able to get away with it. His fans didn’t know what he was like; those on the inside did.

    And there’s our rape culture. Our system protects the offender and puts women at risk.

    I was possibly a bit hard on Barry. Given that she had spoken out about Harris, I thought she would break the suppression order by naming the predator in Parliament.

    But, of course, any MP can do that. None contacted me. The worry is that once offenders start being named, where will it end? Who would be implicated? That’s it. That’s our “rape culture”. Parliament’s suppression laws and MPs’ silence sanction it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. SPC (5,772 comments) says:

    sportone, previous association with the Labour Party …. er no, it was with the blues caucus team.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Maggy Wassilieff (236 comments) says:
    July 21st, 2014 at 10:30 am

    Breaking the law you need to apologise over – leading the husband astray, should win you a medal! :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. fernglas (171 comments) says:

    The prohibition is against publishing, ie making public or putting into the public domain, information which might lead to the identification of the offender, specifically name address and occupation. It is highly unlikely, although not yet tested, that passing on a bit of gossip to a spouse or friend falls within the prohibition. But publishing a link to material which identifies the person, or, as Oil found to his disadvantage, publishing cryptic clues which have the same effect is naughty and a big no-no.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    Suppression of information is a difficult ambition today.

    Yes it is.

    But it seems to be only a few suppression orders that are publicly challenged. In the three I’ve seen over the past couple of weeks in each case the victims were complaining about their attackers not being properly held to account while they suffered ongoing problems.

    Hide brought up this case because he believes that the person involved has a history of similar behaviour that is well known in political circles. That’s quite pertinent when politicians are involving themselves in the issue of rape and sexual assault.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Captain Pugwash (98 comments) says:

    Considering the offenders name is suppressed, and what his political persuasion was, it is not necessarily surprising that Cunliffe wouldn’t know his identity. Perhaps it suggests a certain naivete within Cunliffe’s office that they don’t have people picking up on stories like this.

    I know you can’t name the guy David, but it’s almost like the pot calling the kettle black in this instance.

    BTW: I read an overseas news site that named the guy, I’d love to put up some funny cryptic clues as to who the guy is, but I don’t want to get into trouble. I think it’s appalling this guy got name suppression, but disappointing I’m not surprised. The establishment seems to protect guys like this.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    @thedavincimode 9.33am

    This!

    +1

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Farmerpete (53 comments) says:

    Look I don’t really like Cunliffe, and I would not vote for him, but I have met this offender, and can easily see how he got to meet him. The guy is obsessed with sex, and he has a superficial charm, and is widely connected.
    This is one of the problems with the name suppression laws. I am quite happy to attack Cunliffe on a host of other gaffes, including his stupid apology, but not on this issue. Here the blame lies with the laws around name suppression.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. big bruv (14,148 comments) says:

    Given the way that the low life scum from the left danced all over John Banks political grave I have no hesitation in saying that I think that Cuntliffe should resign over this. To have lunch with a man who has been labelled as NZ’s Rolf Harris only weeks after saying that he is ashamed to be a man shows that Cuntliffe is nothing more than a liar.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    Interesting that a lot more detail is being discussed at “Open mike” at The Standard today, unmoderated.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Fletch (6,492 comments) says:

    I had no idea who the offender was, but I found the name in under a minute.
    I used Tor browser, just to be on the safe side, as the article mentioned that it was illegal to view from NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    The thing about name suppression breaches on the internet is that they are easy to locate; just google the persons name, and bing! there it is.

    Name suppression is one of those antiquated laws that cannot survive the internet.

    If most people CAN learn the offenders name, then it is fair to expect a party leaders staff to also find it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Colville (2,300 comments) says:

    If the offender is who I think it is Wiki lists him as 83kg and 5’10”. Hardly a huge unit.

    I wonder who out there has a iphone pic of Cun*liffe pressing the flesh with this creep?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Hamish_NZ (46 comments) says:

    The ODT basically pointed out the exact search terms needed to do a Google search and find the name within a minute over the weekend. If they’re prepared to go that far I’d suggest they have a fairly strong case that passing on information that could lead to a person being identified is fully legal.
    Pretty sure no court in NZ is going to lock up or punish pretty much an entire region of NZ for breach of suppression by telling their friends etc who the person is. Plus the fact they’d have to prove such a conversation took place, and unless they manage to secretly record such a conversation it would be nearly impossible to prove.
    In some circumstances it would be illegal for the suppressed person to not tell certain people about their conviction. Such as telling your employer. They’d then also be required to tell any future employers of this person if asked about the person’s suitability for employment.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. kowtow (8,763 comments) says:

    Queenstown ski holiday……..very proletarian.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. davidp (3,588 comments) says:

    A couple of points:

    Cunliffe didn’t know the offender’s identity but found out yesterday. Someone must have told him. That person breached the suppression order and should be prosecuted. Cunliffe should identify this person and hand them in to the police. It’d be a bad look if John Banks was prosecuted for a minor offence while someone close to Cunliffe had violated a court order and was not prosecuted.

    Presumably the bottle of wine needs to be listed on Cunliffe’s parliamentary gift register. So does Cunliffe list the giver as “name supressed”, or does is he in breach of the order by actually listing the giver’s name?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    I think that would be from his playing days. I’d suspect he’d be a lot more than 83kg now!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Pdubyah (22 comments) says:

    I snorted when I read his nickname, of course I searched it and went out of my way to do so. But I was surprised at other names mentioned.

    The collective ‘we’ have (or had) a big tolerance of mis-behaviour of ‘stars’ and ‘celebrity’, this is/has changed. I’d like to see Jan Logie come out and bang on this drum for a while though, I doubt it’ll happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Chuck Bird (4,924 comments) says:

    According to the ODT article by Prof Henaghan MPs naming him in Parliament can be charged with contempt of court. I doubt if that would happen if he is correct.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. graham71 (12 comments) says:

    Goggle Darren hinche

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. SHG (318 comments) says:

    Apologies to DPF for using the “prominent New Zealander’s” name in another thread – I didn’t realise there was any uncertainty as to the individual.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. holysheet (426 comments) says:

    All I have to say is this so called rape culture is a bit of a [DPF: Don’t do that or you’ll get demerits and/or a court appearance]

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. gump (1,661 comments) says:

    @graham71

    “Goggle Darren hinche”

    ———————-

    It’s actually spelled “Derryn Hinch”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Chuck Bird (4,924 comments) says:

    How many on this blog do not knew who the sexual predator is?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. itstricky (1,881 comments) says:

    If Cunliffe was smart enough *please wait while I finish laughing* he can spin this to be positive. He can stand up with Parliamentary Privilege surrounding him name him and highlight that this was a mistake due to the name suppression laws protecting low life

    Ergo, If DPF (who has posted before on lifting suppression for the good of all more than a few times before) was, he could use this as a prime example. And we could all debate it. But, alas, it’s July going on August and cheap shots on the opposition for not “being in the know” are more satisfying.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. itstricky (1,881 comments) says:

    DAVID CUNLIFFE DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT THE NAME SUPPRESSED SEX OFFENDER
    by Cameron Slater on July 21, 2014 at 10:00am
    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/

    Thank God the real journalists have arrived.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. burt (8,316 comments) says:

    OMG – A prominent person has suffered because people are disgusted with their offending. This is a serious failure of the Justice system and this guy can forget his shame of being a man and just be outraged the court system didn’t protect him !!!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. burt (8,316 comments) says:

    davidp

    Your couple of points are very valid, or would be very valid except for one thing – Cunliffe is from the Labour party – Move On !!!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. FeralScrote (225 comments) says:

    I should have just read to the bottom of the thread,it would have saved me all of 30 seconds on google to find the answer to the mystery .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. itstricky (1,881 comments) says:

    At least Cunliffe’s “interested” in the case, I suppose…

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11296911

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    Cunliffe has now admitted the person he was going to meet was a possible sex offender but went ahead because “no proof had been supplied”.

    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.

    “There is a suspicion that a person who asked to meet me and my candidate down there might be a person in that category. All I can say is had I known that, and we did ask around if there was any reason not to meet, we wouldn’t have had the meeting.”

    http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland/news/1397897068–sometimes-tough-times-make-you-tougher—-cunliffe

    Dumb. Very dumb.

    He also said “”Sometimes tough times make you tougher”. It doesn’t look like that sort of time for him.

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