About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

March 25, 2005 6:26pm by David Farrar

Peron update

Two new updates:

1) Part 2 of the gaynz.com investigation. They state “So far, sources we spoke to (and indeed, Peron

Share this:

Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Reddit
WhatsApp
More

Pinterest
Print
Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading…

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment106

Uncategorized

Related Stories

Latest Peron news
The Jim Peron allegations
Two Jim Peron Interviews

Comments (106)

Login to comment or vote

anti_ambla

The facts have been out there for a long time. For some strange reason, those people covering the story who were in (blind) support of Peron never found them. I guess gayNZ didn’t have sufficient motivation to do so until someone else made the evidence public. I guess nobody likes dobbing in a mate.

http://jimperon.bravehost.com

The hard evidence at very least shows that Jim lied his face off.
0 0
Report
March 25, 2005 7:25pm
Gooner

I had this to say on a related topic:

“Whig, Zen thank you. I want evidence Jim is a paedophile. I want a conviction. I want him to admit it. I want more than just a bloody website which I could start up and publish shite. Stop trying this guy through the internet”.

I was tempted and checked out the above website. Amongst the innuendo, speculation and downright bullshit comes this statement:

“We are more than happy to identify ourselves. We are not ashamed of the fact that we are saying these things. They need to be said. However, we are not in a position, financially, to defend a defamation suit. We welcome support from anyone who would be willing to contribute to this end, or we would be happy to speak to any lawyer or law firm that would take up this matter should it arise. If any parties are willing to do this, please let us know, and we will readily identify ourselves, so that we can defend these claims in court. The evidence is readily available…”

You are scum of the lowest kind. Hiding behind the internet when publishing shit like this. I say identify yourself(ves) now. If you are so sure about your ‘evidence’ then you can plead truth as a defence, IF you are sued, and knock out the claim early. I’m sure you could apply for legal aid if you have no money.

I tried to read some of those links, but truthfully got tired of reading irrelevant crap. I did find this quote of Jim Peron interesting: ‘Sale of a book does not make one a promoter of the ideas in the book except in the most loose definition of the word. Bookstore owners are usually not considered to be endorsing every book they stock…’

Well said Jim. Your accusers forget this.

Winston hides behind Parliamentary privilege and you people? hide behind anonymity. Vile.

By the way, I am a heterosexual male, in a defacto relationship with my female partner of 8 years, with a 5 year old daughter. I don’t know Jim, never met him. I just despise trial by internet.
0 0
Report
March 25, 2005 8:59pm
Madeleine

The Locke Foundation Report contains far more information than gaynz.com have been able to obtain or any other site for that matter and our evidence is not electronic it consists of a full edition of Unbound, Jim Peron’s Free Forum Books paedophilic periodical sent to us by Olin Library at the Wesleyan University Connecticut.

In this Periodical that refers to Free Forum Books and Jim Peron is more than one place, Jim includes his own article with his name on it where he strongly argues for the inclusion of the man boy love movement in the gay human rights movement and villifies those who oppose this.

I also have eye witnesses who each confirm parts of the contents of this Jim Peron’s autobiographical article in Unbound by recalling separate and individual encounters with Jim Peron where he told them things that all point to the truth and authenticity of the article despite the fact I only located the issue of Unbound after they wrote their statements/gave their interviews.

But don’t take my word for it, email me and ask me to send you a copy of Unbound and read it for yourself. Go to the Locke Foundation’s research and articles page and read our report where we document all our evidence and our findings. Judge the evidence for yourself.

Madeleine Flannagan
Communications Director
Locke Foundation
0 0
Report
March 25, 2005 9:40pm
Madeleine

David you quoted gaynz.com:
“What were Jim’s views 20 years ago when living in San Francisco? I don’t know. Personally I think that those who do advocate child/adult relationships are absolutely wrong. No buts, no ifs.

At what age one is no longer a “child” is a debatable issue. Peron says to gaynz.com that his belief now is
0 0
Report
March 25, 2005 9:50pm
Gooner

Madeleine, with all due respect I went to the Locke website and read the same material there as is on the other website. One could be excused for thinking it was a ‘cut and paste’ job. So far the only ‘evidence’ that Jim IS a paedophile is that he wrote an article 20 years ago (quote from you above) ‘where he strongly argues for the inclusion of the man boy love movement in the gay human rights movement and villifies those who oppose this.’

Don’t you realise that his argument might have been based on his libertarian ideals, rather than his sexual ones? The quote (from you) tends to support this. I repeat what I have already said – If I write an article in a law journal supporting/advocating arguing for the death penalty, does that make me a murderer?
0 0
Report
March 25, 2005 9:53pm
Madeleine

Our report is 29 pages long, the website you refer to has only bits of what we have.

Since we received Unbound on Wednesday morning around a dozen people now also have a copy and I understand they are showing it to other people so I could not tell you how many people have seen it now, but of those who have that I know about, not one disagrees with our conclusions so far.

Madeleine
0 0
Report
March 25, 2005 10:14pm
dim

It seems to me that there’s still no evidence of a crime being committed here. Discussing the practise of paedophilia is entirely legal in any country that enjoys the benefits of freedom of speech, so long as that discussion does not violate any obscenity laws or contain pornographic material featuring people below the age of consent.

Freedom of speech is only that if people have the right to express views that the majority find distasteful, and exercising that freedom is no crime.
0 0
Report
March 25, 2005 10:20pm
Matt

Gooner you wrote

*So far the only ‘evidence’ that Jim IS a paedophile is that he wrote an article 20 years ago (quote from you above) ‘where he strongly argues for the inclusion of the man boy love movement in the gay human rights movement and villifies those who oppose this.’*

I think you misunderstand our position, neither Madeleine nor I claimed Jim was a Pedophile. We summarise our findings in our MR and nowhere is it claimed Jim is a pedophile. This is simply a strawman on your part.

*Don’t you realise that his argument might have been based on his libertarian ideals, rather than his sexual ones? The quote (from you) tends to support this.*

Again nowhere did Madeliene ( and nor have I ) alleged that Jim’s argument was based on his sexual ideas.

You appear to think that Madeleine and I are arguing that Jim is a pedophile because of his beliefs about sex. Of course groups like Gaynz love to make slanderous claims like this, but they are false.

I have never held that Jim is a pedophile nor have I held that all Gay men are pedophiles. Anyone who says I do is simply a liar.

*I repeat what I have already said – If I write an article in a law journal supporting/advocating arguing for the death penalty, does that make me a murderer?*

Depends, if one believes that the death penality is judical murder, then if I advocate for it and people are persuaded by my arguments and change the law then I am partly responsible for the judical murder that occurs.

On the other hand if one things that capital punishment is not murder then no, people who murder would be doing something other than what I advocated.

Similarly if I held meetings of the north american fag bashing association in my property, I openly endorse their message, sell their material plus publish my own one, where I argue that Gay bashing is a human right. and other people who are part of this movement are persuaded by what I say and go out and bash fags, would I be completely exonerated from the results. I doubt Jim and his supporters would grant this point. And I do not think that molesting children is morally better than Gay bashing.

Matt
0 0
Report
March 25, 2005 10:48pm
Matt

Gooner

Your response to Madeliene is a straw man. First nowhere did Madeliene claim that Jim was a Pedophile, we summarised our findings in our MR and the claim that Jim is a Pedophile is not one of them. Second nowhere did we speculate on whether Jims beliefs were motivated by his ideas about sex or his libertarianism.

The allegations raised by Lindsay Perigo and others was not that Jim was a Pedophile it was that he was assocaited with the man boy movement and an advocate/ defender of Pedophilla.

What Madeliene did say was that Jims comments of Gaynz about his views on age of consent, do not cohere with his published comments on the matter. Fairly recently he has cited laws which raise the age of consent above 10 as an expression of a collectivist mentality.

Second your comments about the death penalty are not entirely correct. If the death penalty is judical murder ( a view I do not hold btw) then if I advocate reinstating it, and people are persuaded by my arguments and do bring it back in, then I am at least party responsible for the state murdering people.

Matt
0 0
Report
March 25, 2005 11:01pm
anti_ambla

Gooner, your hyprocrisy i sunbelievable.

You call the website “bullshit” and yet you believe parts of it selectively (i.e. claims from Jim Peron). Not only do you call the site bullshit, but you admit here that you were too lazy to read the articles the site linked to! Either you have read the site, and it’s bullshit, or you didn’t look at the evidence, and you’re speaking out of ignorance when you call it bullshit.

And for goodness’ sake – educate yourself. Do you even known what it costs to defend yourself against a defamation charge?

In any case, it seems the Locke foundation has presented its own evidence for th same conclusions. If Peron thinks the evidence is trumped up, he has a target to sue. Let’s see if he does. The reality is, it does not do much for one’s image to sue a person for reporting publicly accesible facts. To say that the truth is in poor taste is the height of hypocrisy.
0 0
Report
March 25, 2005 11:03pm
Madeleine

Dim you are correct that we did not conclude that Jim is a paedophile but I disagree that all Jim did was exercise his right to practice offensive speech.

Jim Peron is a convincing man, his arguments are persuasive and he compels others to think, to act to feel grounded that what they do is right. This is why he played the role he played in the libertarian movement.

However this strength is his weakness on this subject. For while we found no evidence that Jim is a paedophile we found plenty that he encouraged, advocated, endorsed, supported and harboured paedophiles. He used his skills to help others justify their rape of children and destroy families and this is morally wrong.

The right to offensive speech is limited the moment it results in actions that harm others. When you know the people you are speaking to believe in acting on, and do act on, the beliefs you speak of, even if you do not act on them yourself, you are party to their actions if you encourage, support, aid them to do so.

NAMBLA meetings and the NAMBLA bulleting are places where paedophiles go to to learn more about their craft, the learn how to groom their victims and how to get away with it. For NAMBLA members the speech is not hypothetical and we know that for the group Jim harboured it was not hypothetical, children were raped and some by HIV infected men.

Why did these mens consciences not kick in? On some level we all know the things that we do are wrong even if we want to be blind to them and paedophiles are not immune to this human ail, they seek out NAMBLA meetings and publications that tell them that what they do is ok and then they feel better about doing it.

So even if you think there is nothing wrong with hanging out with paedophiles and justifying their actions for them I do not and I do not believe that this is a violation of free speech if you know the person you are expressing the ideas to is taking the ideas and acting on them.

Its like publishing a magazine for a bunch of known to you bank robbers, including the code for the bank vault then trying to claim you had nothing to do with the robbery.

Further even if it were legal free speech it is not moral free speech.

Another issue is that Jim has lied to everyone. He lied to his friends, the public and the media. He slandered the reputations of people who tried to tell the truth and was happy to stand back and say nothing when others believed him and joined in on the attacks on these peoples reputations. He told everyone the former owner of his store was the one into NAMBLA when the former owner was not. He put the ACT party, a party he supposedly believes in, at risk by his association with them when he lied and in an election year.

Now these things may not be illegal but they speak volumes about the sort of man he is, they speak to his character and his principles, that he will sell out innocent people and his political beliefs to get away with his lies, he will betray his friends, deceive the public, make the media who defended him look like fools, and he advocated for the rape of children.

But you say that because it was all legal, it was all right. Well like I said before, tell that to the people he hurt and I am sure they will feel lots better.

One final thought for you, if this was all just about free speech on Jim Peron’s part then why lie at all in the first place?

Madeleine
0 0
Report
March 25, 2005 11:32pm
gazzadelsud

this is getting ridiculous. Matt and Madeleine, you don’t like gay people, ok, we got that. now FUCK off and go and worship your miserable vindictive god somewhere else.

In case you hadn’t remembered, this is Easter Weekend, I advise you to check Matthew 25:40.
0 0
Report
March 25, 2005 11:38pm
Craig Ranapia

Madeleine –

Just as a matter of interest, did the Locke Foundation seek legal advice before soliciting, importing, and distributing material you describe as ‘paedophilic’?
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 1:16am
AL

Yes OP, I have to admit im curious about that as well. Aside from that, the Locke Foundation is showing a certain malicious pursuit of Peron.
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 2:24am
Whig

Well now that’s an interesting argument put forth by the Dunedin Inquisition, seeing as the Flanagans are prominent antiabortionists and have argued against legal abortion. You could, following their line of thinking, argue that they are morally culpable for the shooting of abortion doctors, since the views they put forward allow murderers to justify their actions as well. Which is why it’s a dumb argument. I support the legalisation of drugs, but that doesn’t make me culpable for people chopping each other’s hands off with samurai swords.

I still don’t know what Jim is supposed to have lied about. Lack of disclosure of one’s every thought and movement twenty years ago is not lying. Jim has no obligation to give anyone a stick to beat him with.

The vindictiveness is unbelievable. Setting up an anonymous website, writing a 29 page report… who’s the sick fuck here? It sure ain’t Jim. If the Inquisition really were classical liberals they’d be busy debating his ideas, not attempting to shut them down. Since they refuse to do so, it is open season on the Dunedin brownshirts.
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 3:42am
Gooner

Dear Madeleine, Matt & Anti Ambla

Why are you allso fixated with Jim Peron? Winston called him a paedophile, and you three, along with the ‘Foundation’ cannot substantiate that so now persecute him through the internet by alleging he advocates/supports it. You all make me sick.

I didn’t read the website, I clicked on one of the links and read that. The website is bullshit.

I know exactly how much it costs to claim defamation in a court and defend it so spare me this condescending, obnoxious drivel please.

I don’t believe anything the partisan, subjective Locke Foundation espouses, as much as they don’t beiieve Jim Peron.

This is the same hysteria that saw Peter Ellis convicted before he was even born! Take a look at yourselves.
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 8:57am
Adolf Fiinkensein

Well said gazzadelsud. The God of fundamentalist nutters indeed is vindictive. It is difficult to discern any grace amongst those who have taken it upon themselves to decide everybody else’s sins and then to pass judgement on them. I hope these people have their arses sued off and I hope they do not receive legal aid. As you quite rightly say, it is Easter. The practice of executing for their ideas, people who have committed no crime appears to be alive and well, even after nearly 2,000 years.
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 9:08am
James

This attack on Jim is because he would not roll over and let barking Mad and her DoorMat bully their way on to the Free studenst network web group which Jim set up to enable Libertarians of all parties to talk and plan amoungst themselves.The allegations by Peters were like blood in the water to these two and so they have embarked on this witchunt.However they are not very bright and sloppy in their infomation gathering whilst others aren’t….Expect to see them in their new lodgings,a cardboard box under a motorway overpass, once Jims lawyer gets cracking…
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 9:16am
Madeleine

Craig, yes we took advice before importing Unbound. For the purposes of research, Unbound was not illegal to import.

However displaying the explicit parts of Unbound on our website or even the entire article by Jim Peron where he strongly advocates for the paedophilic movement’s human rights cause that paedophiles should be able to legally have sex with children without condemnation from society, would most likely be illegal.

Madeleine
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 9:22am
Madeleine

James, read up on defences of public interest and reasonably held opinion, we have a solid defence.

Then read the law on defamation and consider what you write about our motives very carefully.

While you are doing all this reading, re-read the description on Free Students Network under the join this group button.

Free Students Network group description

Finally go through the archives on FSN or the page on that Truth about Jim website where the archives have been published and where Jim is bashing those who agree with defamation law as “illiberals.”

Madeleine
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 9:39am
gazzadelsud

well mad and matt really have crawled out from under a rock havent they – are you really now threatening to sue anyone who questions your ever pure “motives”?

The fact that libertarians believe in free speech is not an excuse for the filthy inuendo that you specialise in. nor will it help you, when you call gotcha if Jim feels the need to take action.

as i said, a nasty piece of work both of you. You are a disgrace to anyone who professes to be a “Christian”.

Man I hate dunedin christians (with apologies to the Blues Brothers – those who get the allusion will understand that this should close the thread)
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 10:23am
anti Ambla

Gooner, it’s more of the same from you. You call a site bullshit while you again admit that you never read it. This just shows that you form judgements on the basis of no evidence.

It’s obvious that Jim lied. He claimed to have never been associated with NAMBLA or to have endorsed them. A lie. He advocated their views and even published his own journal in favour of paedophilia for crying out loud.

Cry “bullshit” all you want, after you’ve demonstrated it. Either rebut the evidence or shut up. This is a case of Jim’s buddies having defended him before they even saw the evidence, and now when the evidence does not go their way and they look stupid, they shoot the messenger. If you want to defend the message that men who shag boys are A O K, at least be honest abouyt it. If not, call a spade a spade.
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 10:38am
Xavier

What the hell is with ‘the Locke Foundation’? A couple of fundamentalist Christians think they can call themselves ‘classic liberals’ because they happen to believe in voluntary student unionism. Crazy! The most hardline anti personal freedom people in this country (save, perhaps, for Garnet Milne), who basically want to outlaw contraception, abortion and prevent equal civil rights for same-sex couples. Unbelievable! It’s an affront to true classic liberals everywhere (Rodney, DPF, HRC etc)
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 10:52am
Glenn

Xavier, what in the world are you talking about? What a bunch of gratuitous lies. Anti personal freedom? Outlawing contraception for crying out loud???? And classical liberalism upholds equal rights for every person, not for every group. For example, a group consisting of a man and his three brothers does not have the same rights as a man. A man can marry a woman, but a man and his three brothers cannot. Appearently you’re stuck in collectivist/Socialist thinking. Classical liberalism has a more individualist understanding of rights. Of course, you’re free to reject this outlook, but at least understand it before you attack people for allegedly not holding it.
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 11:15am
kabluey

Glenn, OK, fair call, on an individualist view like classical liberalism, individual rights are the thing we’re looking at. I’m a liberal, and so I reject Xavier’s collectivist approach as well. Not every collection of people has the same rights as an individual, well spotted. But this leaves the issue here: You’re saying that a heterosexual man can marry whoever he loves, but a gay man cannot. Ergo, you’re treating individual people unequally, aren’t you?
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 11:23am
Glenn

Kabluey

I realise there is a widespread perception that to say that a man cannot marry whoever he loves is to treat people unequally. When UniQ and other gay groups picketed Destiny Church here in Dunedin, apart fromt he defammatory signs they carried, one of the placards read “Love who you want to love,” or something very similar. I doubt they had taken the time to consider incest and polygamy when they painted this ill thought out sign.

But cheap gay politics aside, if we’re going to take the Classical Liberal approach and treat people as individuals, we have to refrain from a Marxist ‘class’ approach. It’s not a matter of treating “gay” people differently from “straight” people. It’s about having one standard, and applying it to all individual people. A man – ANY man, cannot marry just whoever he happens to love. Forget class labels like gay or straight. All men are treated euqally if they are all allowed to enter marriage. Whether some men might eject marriage and prefer instead a same sex union is not the point. The point is that nobody is being treated differently from anyone else in law under this scenario.

Now, you might object to the above scenario. But I don;t think you’re in a position to object on the grounds that anybody is being treated “unequally.” Any person can get married in the above scenario.

moreover, as many liberals will note, the civil unions bill (and I assume that’s what Xavier had in mind) conferred no new civil rights upon gay people. Literally zero. Everything that a civil union gave them the right to do, they already had the right to do, so his comment was simply founded on ignorance.
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 11:40am
Xavier

Glenn, Matthew and Madeleine Flannagan, alleged ‘Lockesian’ liberals, are hypocrites. According to them, it’s only ok to exercise personal freedoms (that is, the right to do with one’s body and one’s life as one pleases) only if it fits in with their preconceived notions of ‘morality’. Their association (and yours, if you are Glenn Peoples) with SOUL precludes them from being advocates of personal sovereignty. Matthew and Madeleine’s brand of liberalism is just a guise to try and sound legitimate. A real liberal organisation (such as the Institute for Liberal Values) ensures that they are consistent in their approach to all matters of personal freedom, not just those that don’t contradict an archaic religious text.
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 11:58am
Xavier

“Literally zero. Everything that a civil union gave them the right to do, they already had the right to do, so his comment was simply founded on ignorance”

Please explain THAT one. Irrespective of the fact that Civil Unions don’t confer legal rights (the R(SR)Act), they still provided the mechanism of recognition. So gay couples automatically had the right to have their relationships recognised by the state before the Civil Union Act?
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 12:09pm
Madeleine

Our positions on abortion, contraception, civil unions did not cause Jim Peron to publish Unbound. Neither did they cause Jim Peron to argue fervently in favour of children being able to consent to “man boy love”. Nor did it cause him to slam the gay rights movement who correctly dissociated themselves from the paedophile legalisation/normalisation movement.

The merits of the Locke Foundation and whether or not we are really Classical Liberals in the tradition of John Locke tells the public nothing of the motives of Jim Peron in lying to public and media in his “whole truth” article, in his interviews where he said he had never endorsed adults having sex with children, that he had no links to NAMBLA beyond being recquired by contract to sell their bulletin.

Our motives in investigating this matter do not speak to Jim Peron’s motives in accusing Lindsay Perigo whom gaynz.com called a wormtongue for betraying one of their own. Lindsay is a gay man whose reputation did not deserve to be tarnished with Jim Peron’s lies, if we are out to get all gay men then why did we help Lindsay?

If you do not like the contents of our report, and I agree with Glenn that you should actually read it first, then critique it. Bringing up our position on abortion, which you well know we have a strong Classical Liberal case for that you have been unable to answer, does not address the report.

If you do not like the fact we located a copy of Unbound then take that up with your friend the publisher and one of the writers for it. Our position on Civil Unions does not have anything to do with the fact Unbound exists and we have a copy.

Decide where you stand on lying to the public, slandering innocent gay men and advocating the rape of children and then either defend that or condemn it.

The fact we happen to be Christians has nothing to do with it.

Madeleine
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 12:25pm
robin

“NAMBLA did not meet in the store prior to Jim Peron’s purchase of the store in 1985 but took up residence afterwards. They were not asked to leave but left when Peron sold the store”.

Madeleine et al, The ‘The Locke Foundation Report on Jim Peron’ is currently offline at the moment on your website.

Do you have documentation to suggest that this is the case, or are you relying on personal accounts of a person or a group of people? It has been proven so far that accounts from people in the USA have not been entirely truthful.

Could you care to explain your evidence or proof to back up these claims, or alternatively fix your website?
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 1:02pm
Glenn

Xavier, you have just shown your true anti-liberal colours. State intervention via registration of relationships is not a right. Gay people had the same legal protections and rights as individuals before that they will have under the new law. That’s just the bare truth of the matter.

I find the pattern here all too familiar. Jim is accused of X by a group of people. The evidence shows that Jim is guilty of X. Jim’s buddies point out that the group of people are affiliated with Group A. Jim’s buddies call group A a bunsh of names. Therefore the accusations are dismissed. What a crock.
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 1:05pm
Gooner

For your peace of mind Anti, I am utterly against men ‘shagging’ boys. I find that idea repulsive, as would practically everybody reading this. But that is not the ‘message’ here as you believe it to be. What exactly do you want me to form a judgment on? Whether Jim Peron had an opinion/belief about something? I’ll gladly form a judgment on that. Yes he did. Is his opinion/belief wrong? That’s not for me to say, unlike your ilk.
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 1:15pm
gazzadelsud

so Glenn, what are you saying Jim Peron is guilty of?

well? are you calling him a paedophile?

are you saying he has done anything illegal?

what is he deemed to be “guilty” of?

put up or shut up. There are laws in New Zealand, one of them is the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

we don’t need creeps like you or that so-called Locke foundation.

ironically of course, i think you and your grubby mates pushing of this issue only demonstrates the intolerance of so-called Christians. Fortunately however, you profess to believe in God, so i guess there is a special part of hell being marked out for you even as you spout your drivel.

and frankly i don’t care if Peron gets there too – you are going there willingly and under your own steam. I reserve any judgement on him, but you people are disgusting.

as i said, I hate dunedin christians (with apologies to Jake and Elwood).
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 1:18pm
Glenn

gazzadelsud, are you blind, or simply lazy?

A lengthy report is released, and you’re still asking inane questions like “well? Well? What did he do?” this ridiculous facade of bravado is disingenuous (“put up or shut up”? Please…) Your comments about “laws in new Zealand” are also a red herring. Nobody on this forum is accusing Mr Peron of committing a crime in NZ. having said that, if he had tried to sell and publish his pro-paedophile propaganda while IN New Zealand, it would be another story.

He is guilty of the following:

Of publishing a journal defending the legitimacy of men who have sex with boys.

Of writing in that journal and elsewhere, attacking those who call boy lovers criminals and child abusers. He specifically attacks the gay community for not supporting paedophiles.

Of promoting NAMBLA and its ideals, and then of boldly lying about it. He sold their publications, which included advice on how to molest childrne and get away with it. He claims he had to sell it because it was a condition of sale. He said this to cover his arse, but it turned out to be a fabrication. He also allowed NAMBLA to use his store for meetings – this same group that contained active paedophiles.

If you think the evidence for these claims is lacking, then state why. If you think the evidence that Jim has wilfully misled the NZ public about these things, then state why. Put up or shut up.

At least it’s clear which one of us is motivated by truth and which one is motivated by hatred. “I hate Dunedin Christians”? You only reserve judgement on Jim because you’re unwilling to exmine the available evidence. Why is that? A little sympathetic to the cause perhaps? Or is it just because you dislike his accusers? Either way, it’s deplorable.
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 1:42pm
sock thief

I think people should distinguish between two issues:

1. The motivation of those who have been driving this issues and

2. Jim Peron’s culpability.

The motivation of those driving this issue deserves the severest condemnation. There is nothing in what the likes of what Perigo has done that shows any concern with protecting children. The primary motivation has been to mount a vicious character assignation for purely personal reasons.

However, Jim Peron was given every opportunity to deny the allegations but did not. Instead he his placed his friends and other supporters in the invidious position of having to admit that people such as the Locke foundation were right. Peron has given more ammunition to people who are only too willing to slander gays as paedophiles. Not only has he let down well motivated individuals who came to his defense, he has also let down the cause of gay rights.

That Peron did not own up to his past suggests that he may not have entirely come to terms with why he once advocated and leaves the suspicion that he may still have the same sympathies.

Peron’s betrayal of his friends is not a very good indication of his ability to make moral judgments.

And let’s be honest, advocating sex between children and adults is horrendous.
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 2:03pm
Glenn

Sock Thief

I am glad that you are able to see that the motivations of the accuser has nothing to do with the truth of the matter.

I do however take exception to any questioning of my motives in this (I am a member of the Locke foundation). I am a man and a father. The promotion of the legitimacy of sex between men and boys is ustterly repugnant to me not least because of the fact that I have four children. There is just no reason that my religious affiliation should suggest to anyone that my motives lie elsewhere, and I utterly resent any suggestion to the contrary.
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 2:30pm
Whig

Let’s see what we have here:

– Of publishing a journal defending the legitimacy of men who have sex with boys.

Well I disagree with this opinion, but Jim is entitled to hold it, if indeed he still does. It doesn’t make him a bad person, any more that defending homosexual sex makes me gay.

In any case, so far all you have shown us is Jim arguing that the age of consent should be lowered. Anything you have said has been your innuendo and your misrepresentation. You are not engaging in the debate, but using emotive language to try and demonise him. This is not acceptable.

– Of writing in that journal and elsewhere, attacking those who call boy lovers criminals and child abusers. He specifically attacks the gay community for not supporting paedophiles.

Again, controversial views, but so what? So is outlawing abortion. Maybe Jim holds these views still, maybe he doesn’t. Tell me why I should care? Frankly I can’t think of an occupation less likely to put one into contact with children than being a gay man owning a philosophical bookstore. If Jim is a threat to our nation’s children you’d think he’d be a bit more active about it.

– Of promoting NAMBLA and its ideals, and then of boldly lying about it.

How has Jim promoted NAMBLA? And when did he lie about it? Allowing them to meet in your store doesn’t count. He is a believer in the exchange of ideas. He has never denied allowing them to meet in his store, or for that matter, agreeing with some of their ideas. WHere is the lie? This claim is bullshit.

– He sold their publications, which included advice on how to molest childrne and get away with it. He claims he had to sell it because it was a condition of sale. He said this to cover his arse, but it turned out to be a fabrication.

According to whom? Who is the source? And why should we believe them?

Frankly Jim has a lot of opinions on a lot of topics and this is just one of those topics. The Inquisition seems obsessed with this one aspect of his thinking, which may not even be his current opinion anymore. Normally I would suggest engaging him in proper argument instead of hysterically claiming him to be an accesory to child rape, but there is one problem: we are talking about one article that appeared twenty years ago! They are claiming him to be a monster because of something he said twenty years ago! It’s literally old news. Move on!

The Inquisition has still failed to give us a reason why we should care about their witchhunt, beyond their psychotic quest to tarnish the reputation of a decent man. Is this really the Lord’s work? Because frankly, I prefer to forgive the “sins” of the past.
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 2:40pm
sock thief

Whig, it is not old news. Peron was supported by a large number of people who were misled. His actions could very well have repercussions in other cases such as if another Peter Ellis-type case arose. What ever your views on Peron’s accusers, that should not colour your consideration of what Peron’s views actually. On the issue of internet child pornography Peron has been arguing that there is no real need to be concerned, it is all a US Government conspiracy to interfere in peoples lives. Bert Potter cloaked his warped view in much the same sophistry.
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 2:50pm
Whig

I agreed with Peron’s article on child porn and find the comparison between the owner of bookstore and a child molester rather odious.

Who was misled? Well I wasn’t! I’m surprised that there’s an article with his name on it published twenty years ago opposing ages of consent, but Jim has never said he never held those views. It would be nice, for the sake of knocking back all this bullshit, if Jim simply came out and said he no longer held these opinions, because they are, admittedly, repulsive. But he has not misled anyone simply through omitting to mention one article he wrote a long time ago.
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 3:11pm
sock thief

Whig, Peron was actively denying many things that have now been shown now to be true. He lied. Close friends were betrayed. The opponents of gay rights have some ammunition. And, I hate to say this, some of Peron’s views rang alarms bells – they were too similar to Potter’s for my liking. You may want to stop to think about who actually benefits from the argument that the issue of internet child pornography is just a government conspiracy.
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 3:28pm
Whig

That is a misrepresentation of what he wrote. He was not denying that images of children being abused exist, simply that the problem is smaller than people are prepared to admit.

What has been shown to be true? All we have is a magazine article and a whole stinking pile of hearsay.
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 3:32pm
Glenn

Whig, you say that just because Jim defended the legitimacy of men having sex with boys, “It doesn’t make him a bad person.” Guess what, whig – YES IT DOES. A person who not only suffers from the condition of believeing paedophilia is OK, but who actually promotes the idea and attacks those who condemn it, is a bad person.

And then you throw more fo this emotive language into the mix: “Anything you have said has been your innuendo and your misrepresentation.”

Such as?

You ask how Jim promoted NAMBLA. He did it by sellng their promotional material, by letting them use his premises as a meeting place, and by writing material that endorsed their views. Simple enough?

You ask what was the source for my comments above. Well, the source for the fact that selling NAMBLA material was not a condition of sale is Eric Garris. The former owner of the store. As in, the guy who sold it to Jim. Clear enough? If you’d read the report you would have seen this already. And as for the source that the NAMBLA material contained adice on how to molest kids and get away with it? That was covered in a KRON investigation. It is an investigative journalism news show, which followed a police investigation into that branch of NAMBLA. That was in the report too. See – if you actually read the evidence that is made available, you wouldn’t still be in the dark.
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 3:34pm
dim

Anyone taking a look at the rest of Jim Perons articles can quickly see that many of them – and I suspect the child porn essay falls into the same category – are attempts to epater les bourgeois. Peron not only thinks child porn is a government conspiracy, but so is global warming. Almost every opinion he holds on a bewildering variety of subjects is seen through the comic funhouse mirror of Libertaranism. Mr Peron also feels that current drug legislation is immoral (and on this I agree) – but that doesn’t make him a heroin manufacturer.
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 3:35pm
sock thief

Whig, think about it, who benefits from the argument that the issue of child pornography “is smaller than people are prepared to admit”? Are you actually prepared to trust the judgement of some one on this issue who deliberatley lied to his friends?
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 3:41pm
Gooner

You’d think someone who supposedly, twenty years ago, offered an opinion on something, and according to the Inquisition is therefore guilty of having bad thoughts and views, would have carried those bad thoughts and views into practice during the intervening period, wouldn’t you? Maybe the fact he has never been charged with a related criminal offence during that long time frame goes precisely to show what exactly his attitude is now to such thoughts/views?
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 3:53pm
Madeleine

“- He sold their publications, which included advice on how to molest childrne and get away with it. He claims he had to sell it because it was a condition of sale. He said this to cover his arse, but it turned out to be a fabrication.

According to whom? Who is the source? And why should we believe them?”

Again, read the report instead of constantly asking questions covered in it.

But here, some answers – note Sergeant Tom Eisenman is the same person who led the raid on Jim Peron’s store in 1987.

http://www.qrd.org/qrd/orgs/NAMBLA/nambla-KRON.transcript

“…the “NAMBLA Bulletin”, published ten times a year.
Now in here you’ll find articles telling you where to meet kids, how to
avoid getting caught, how to teach children to lie to their parents.

Well, is this just talk? Are these people really dangerous? We asked
Kathy Baxter, director of the San Francisco Child Abuse Council. “It is
a group, in my opinion, of men primarily who get together to network with
one another on where to find young boys, how to pick them up, how to get
them involved, and how to feel good about what you’re doing.”

That opinion is shared by San Francisco police sergeant Tom Eisenman.
He asked us to hide his face so he won’t be recognized by the child
molesters he investigates. “I don’t believe they’re harmless at all.
I believe that, because of their meetings, children get molested. And,
as long as that happens, it’s a subject of attention for the San Francisco
Police Department.”

Madeleine
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 3:54pm
Gooner

Madeleine, has Jim Peron ever been arrested/convicted of a relevant offence?
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 4:03pm
Gooner

And before you answer that check out sections 13-19 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 4:08pm
Madeleine

Gooner

“Madeleine, has Jim Peron ever been arrested/convicted of a relevant offence?”

No.

Our claim is that he lied about his links to NAMBLA and slandered innocent people in a setting of huge public interest and that this was wrong.

As such it is a matter of public interest that this lie is corrected.

Further he is applying for residency in our country. One of the criteria he must meet is that of “character” so his mass public deception and his past as an advocate for child rape are very relevant.

Madeleine
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 4:41pm
Madeleine

“he has not misled anyone simply through omitting to mention one article he wrote a long time ago”

“How has Jim promoted NAMBLA? And when did he lie about it? Allowing them to meet in your store doesn’t count. He is a believer in the exchange of ideas. He has never denied allowing them to meet in his store, or for that matter, agreeing with some of their ideas. WHere is the lie? This claim is bullshit.”

Some lies told by Jim:

1) From
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 4:48pm
Madeleine

An email from former owner of Jim Peron’s Bookstore, Eric Garris, sent directly to me:

“When I owned both Libertarian Books and Publications and Mail Central. I
was the sole owner of both businesses at that time. Ron Dorsey was never
an owner, he was a clerk at the store and mailbox service for two years.

I sold them both to Jim Peron in 1985 and he changed the name of the
bookstore to Free Forum Books, and the name of Mail Central to Lysander’s
Mail Central.

I did not sell the NAMBLA bulletin or allow NAMBLA meetings in the
bookstore when I owned it. Jim was an ardent supporter of NAMBLA and gave
it a home at the bookstore after I sold it to him. On several occasions, I
expressed my negative feelings toward associating the Libertarian bookstore
with NAMBLA. When I sold the bookstore to Jim, the only condition of the
sale was that he would allow the Libertarian Party to meet and distribute
literature in the store. I would never have asked him to allow NAMBLA to
meet there, and would have not sold him the bookstore if I had known he
would use it to promote NAMBLA.

Jim sold the NAMBLA bulletin at the bookstore and also promoted it at
Libertarian conventions. He also published his own periodical, UNBOUND,
which advocated adult sex with children.

I do not believe that anyone could find a single official of the
Libertarian Party from that period who would have thought that Ron Dorsey
was an owner of the store.”
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 4:58pm
Whig

Frankly, given the hysteria surrounding anything to do with child molestation and being in Jim’s position, I would have done exactly the same thing. I don’t blame him. The fact remains that he has done nothing illegal and so has nothing to be ashamed of. But if the thought police are going to molest your reputation, why give them ammunition?

It is obvious that this is a personal vendetta, which you deny, so effectively you are in the same boat as Jim. If he is a liar, then you Madeline are equally so. You have a personal axe to grind against him and are denying it. By your moral standards you are no different than he is.

At least you now admit that you want Jim kicked out of the country so we can see your real purpose. I’m sure the children of New Zealand are grateful!
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 5:05pm
Cartman

Sock Thief, possibly the beneficiaries of those opinions would be parents who take pictures of their kids in the bath, or anyone looking at nude pictures of 16yo girls on the internet. Or are you saying that someone should be arrested for merely possessing a picture of someone he could, in this country, legally have sex with?
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 5:20pm
Madeleine

Whig, you now concede that Jim lied after calling me a liar for saying he did.

Where is the retraction and apology?

Now its all my fault and I am just as bad as a mass public deceiver, slanderer and advocate of child rape because I was one of those who brought the lies, the slander and advocacy of child rape to the public who where deceived?

Apparently if my motives were personal, which they were not, this makes everything Jim did on the same par as my actions in uncovering it.

You can accuse me of having personal motives with no evidence, but I can state the truth with evidence and I am the bad guy?

I did not like Jim Peron before I began this investigation, he lied about me on this blog and he singled me, Matt and Glenn out because we were Christians and his institute for liberal values site makes it clear that he has a vendetta against Christians.

Even the non-Christians on Free Student Network have publicly and openly pulled him up for his unprovoked and viscious attacks on us simply because he dislikes Christianity.

The archives are open to anyone to go and read and see for themselves.

However, I did not and would not make something up about someone. The only reason I am pushing the results now is to bring the truth to a nation deceived, who all felt sorry for Jim and believed his lies.

Had Jim not milked the public sympathy for all it was worth I would have simply and quietly taken our report to the relevant authorities and perhaps ACT with whom he was closely associated.

Why does everything I do have to be supposedly motivated from my disagreement of gay sexual conduct? Christians do believe that there are other sins than engaging in homosexual conduct.

My motive for speaking out is that lying is wrong, slandering innocent gay men is wrong, Winston losing votes for the wrong reasons is wrong and that it is wrong to advocate the rape of children.

I do not believe in NZ’s immigration laws, I believe in open borders with restrictions only on criminal records and that those who come here should work for their living. However this is not the law of the land and as a citizen who holds evidence I am obliged to hand it on to the relevant authorities.

Madeleine
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 5:23pm
looke

My goodness, Madeleine you are rabid. Advocating rape of children??? Define “child” and define “rape”, because you seem to have no understand of what either means.
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 5:28pm
Whig

I did not concede that he lied. Failing to disclose your actions is not lying. And I reiterate that this is personally motivated on your part despite your denials.
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 5:31pm
David Bisman

gazzadelsud and others. You have stated that Madeleine and Matt are anti-gay. This is NOT so. I know from personal experience. Neither do they think all gay men are peadophiles.

I am going on record, and please note that I am giving my real name, I live in Dunedin, I am an out gay man (out for over thirty years) and NOT a Christian. I know the Flannagans, have been a frequent guest in their home, have babysat their children. I have detected no homophobia from them towards me, nor towards other gay men or lesbians.

They share with me a revulsion for paedophiles.

But you attacks on them are unfounded and ignorant.

As to the suggestion that one can advocate adult/child sex from a Liberal or Libertarian stance. I disagree. This is NOT a victimless crime. While I abhor the intrusion of the State into the private lives of individuals I see that there is a place for it in regards justice and defence. Preventing the abuse of children IS an appropriate activity for the State. Letting those who advocate it and lie about it set up house in our country is NOT!

David Bisman
Dunedin
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 5:34pm
Matt

OK lets apply this logic shall we,

Lets imagine the following eight things occur. 1) Brian Tamaki invites the New Zealand Society for Queer Bashing (NZQB)to hold meetings in his house, where they meet and teach each other how to bash queers and get away with it and to encourage one another to not feel guilt or shame for wanting to assault Gays. 2) he also begins to sell literature and promote queer bashing in his church, this literature tells people how to bash a queer and get away with it 3) Contemporaneously He himself writes articles advocating queer bashing and preaches that it is everyone
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 6:12pm
gazzadelsud

well well well. David, you are not the only gay person who has met the Locke “institute” and i use that word advisedly – but it is nice to see that they have a pet queer they can turn to to demonstrate their humanity and prove that they aren’t the anti-gay scum that their every other act and deed on this forum seems to have demonstrated.

I have read the “evidence” that these wonderful caring christian people put together, actually i read it 2 days ago, and everything i posted is informed by it (sorry Glenn, i can read).

Glenn, Madeleine, Matt and your grubby accomplices, your evidence is extremely slim. But your hysteria and rumourmongering is into overdrive.

I couldn’t give a toss about Peron – the law will sort him out. But so far you have expended an awful lot of energy to demonstrate that he hasnt committed any crime other than that you don’t like him or his opinions and are desperate to take him down.

fortunately the best solution for people like you is the exposure of your bankrupt thinking and your hate filled ranting. If it wasn’t a serious issue we could all have a good laugh at the fundies taking themselves just a bit too seriously.

Funniest of all is that you think this justifies you in accusing ME of hate (i see popular culture hasnt got as far as the hairshirted from mosgiel, I suggest you google up Blues Brothers and Illinois Nazis!).

pathetic, the lot of you.

come back so that i can taunt you another time!
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 6:27pm
Madeleine

Posted by: looke at March 26, 2005 05:28 PM

“My goodness, Madeleine you are rabid. Advocating rape of children??? Define “child” and define “rape”, because you seem to have no understand of what either means.”

Child: a minor incapable of giving consent.
Rape: sex without consent.

Are you suggesting that an adult having sex with a child is not rape but is in fact adult/child love and that my refusal to accept that is what you find rabid about me?

Madeleine
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 6:38pm
James

Just because an article is tagged “by Jim Peron” does not mean it is so .Also the claim he was the publisher is dependant on his name appearing on the page.Anyone can use someone else’s name in print without that persons knowledge,this would not be the first time articles or excerpts from them have been used without Jims knowledge,hes hears of this happening every now and then.So until its confirmed this is still up in the air.
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 6:41pm
Madeleine

Posted by: looke at March 26, 2005 05:28 PM

“My goodness, Madeleine you are rabid. Advocating rape of children??? Define “child” and define “rape”, because you seem to have no understand of what either means.”

Child: a minor incapable of giving consent.
Rape: sex without consent.

Are you suggesting that an adult having sex with a child is not rape but is in fact adult/child love and that my refusal to accept that is what you find rabid about me?

Madeleine
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 6:45pm
looke

No, Madeleine, what I find rabid about you is your constant exaggeration. “Advocate of child rape” (said repeatedly, adnauseum) in everyday language brings to mind a completely different image than the strictest legal definition. If you took the definition and turned it into “Advocate under-18 sex where there is mutual consent”, when talking to *non-lawyers*, you would come across far more sane.
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 7:00pm
Glenn

gazzadelsud, you say that our every act and deed on this forum shows that we are anti-gay scum. But given that the only acts we have condemned are paedophilia and the advocacy thereof, it seems that you have equated paedophilia with homoseuxality. How homophobic of you!

You also think that people who insist on condemning the actions of peole who advocate shagging children is hateful. How ridiculous. What Jim promoted is disgusting, destructive and intolerable in any free society. having sex with children is not a man’s right in any way shape or form. You have absolutely no moral high ground to take in attacking us this way.

And James, please, you’re utterly grasping at straws now. Just because Jim’s name appears throughout the journal, just because free forum books was the publisher, and just because Jim OWNED free forum books at the time, that doesn’t mean Jim was involved in publishing it? Come on, you’re not that stupid.

And looke – it’s not about under 18-year-old sex. In Jim’s publication, Unbound, the children are as young as twelve. “Child rape” is exactly correct.
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 7:46pm
David Bisman

gazzadelsud : So, because i disagree with you I am a “pet queer”?

I suggest you do a google search where you will find out that I disagree with Matt and Madeleine more than i agree with them. The fact is that in this particular case, they are right.

If you are so ignorant as to stoop to abuse rather than reason when someone disagrees with you then you are claerly sadder than they!

I stand by my record on gay rights, I stand by my record as an anti-paedophile, I stand by my record as a person of integrity, I stand by my record. Care to make your name public and do the same?
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 8:18pm
PaulL

Sorry guys, I think there is a point here, irrespective of the motives of the Dunedin contingent.

Jim said that he allowed Nambla to meet in his bookstore because it was a condition of sale. There seems some evidence that was not true. I don’t know the reality – certainly it is possible the other guy is lying, it is also possible Jim lied. Or that either of them was mistaken – it was a fair while ago. The point being that Jim was very clear on this statement, and if it were untrue that would be important.

Jim implied that he had little contact with Nambla, and that all this is due to one of his employees being arrested. I discount whether it was 1 or 3 teenagers he had relations with, probably he wouldn’t tell Jim how many anyway, and it isn’t really material. But if is true that he hired a number of people who were members of Nambla, that would be a little different. And, again, important.

Pointing out that the age of consent was raised/instituted at the same time as a lot of other collectivist actions isn’t exactly exciting, suggesting that 18 is too high isn’t either (many places in the US, and definitely in NZ, it is lower). Suggesting 12 is beyond what I feel comfortable about, but I seem to recall a current NZ govt recently suggesting reducing the age of consent to 12 in certain circumstances. Should anyone who agreed with this not be considered for NZ citizenship?

So, yes, a lot of murkiness, perhaps some dodgy motives. But also some things starting to come out that do not align with what Jim stated. I would be careful with a blanket defense, as some are making.

It is possible (maybe not likely, but possible) that Jim is more involved with this movement than he has stated. And if that were the case, it would be very embarrassing for a number of people. As I have stated before on this forum and others, an attribute of paedophilia is that your friends don’t know you are one…that both makes it very hard to prove you aren’t one (and therefore a particularly nasty allegation to make under parliamentary privilege), but also makes it risky for friends to provide denials.
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 10:17pm
Gooner

Mad said:

‘I do not believe in NZ’s immigration laws, I believe in open borders with restrictions only on criminal records and that those who come here should work for their living. However this is not the law of the land and as a citizen who holds evidence I am obliged to hand it on to the relevant authorities.’

Oh, you are so self bloody righteous.

Madeleine
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 11:33pm
Gooner

Mad said:

‘I do not believe in NZ’s immigration laws, I believe in open borders with restrictions only on criminal records and that those who come here should work for their living. However this is not the law of the land and as a citizen who holds evidence I am obliged to hand it on to the relevant authorities.’

Oh, you are so self bloody righteous.
0 0
Report
March 26, 2005 11:34pm
gazzadelsud

ah Glenn you did come back how sweet. I see that i am now a homophobe as well as a closet paedophile supporter, thank you for your enlightened thinking on this topic. This and your ability to quote out of context merely confirms my opinion of you (and of course undermines your “case” – nothing like an unreliable interlocutor is there big boy?).

I will ask it again, what is your beef? You have admitted that Peron is not running a porn shop, that he has not committed any crime in NZ and that you have no evidence of any criminal activity anywhere else – so his “crime” is to have (probably) held views you don’t like – 20 years ago.

Well I don’t like those views either, but then I am a libertarian and I believe in free speech and bright light – but most of all i don’t like witchhunters.

David, I don’t mean to impugn your integrity, just to question your choice of company.

PaulL I think makes a few thoughtful points, although i would note that the “locke instititute” emailing me in LA in 2005 and demanding to know if I made Jim Peron host NAMBLA meetings in 1985 would get a quite predictable denial – which is of course to be taken at face value.

But self-righteous bigots claiming the moral high ground as concerned citizens, well that is high comedy! You see david (sorry to bring you back into this), madeleine, glenn and matt have a history. I didn’t give it any credence before, but they have certainly confirmed their reputation on this thread – by their words and deeds shall we know them.

as i had said before, these people profess to believe in God, therefore may i respectfully suggest that they not bother to pack any woolies for the afterlife.

oh, and happy Easter – what would Jesus say? “blessed are the vigilantes” – no, didnt think so.

of course as part of the reputation of these fine people is to never listen to disagreement, never change their minds, never let go of an issue and to attempt to bludgeon opponents into acquiescence (or at least silence) i expect this comments thread to go for a new Farrar record.

Go on, prove me wrong!
0 0
Report
March 27, 2005 8:08am
rightkiwi

Having read all this, it seems there is no suggestion this guy has had sex with, or otherwise molested, children – but that, in the US, he may have associated with people who did. He also may or may not think certain things, but if he does think these things, it is accepted this by his accusers that this would not be a crime. And there is no suggestion of criminal activity in NZ.

Could both sides of the debate tell me if they think I have got this right?
0 0
Report
March 27, 2005 10:20am
James

I’ve just spent the last hour and a half reading a full indepth interview with Jim that he has just sent through to his web discussion group.I am not at liberty to quote it as it is in a rough state and will be polished up for posting on Gaynz.In in Jim explains in great depth everything that has gone on and explains a lot.He knew nothing of “Unbound” and was not the publisher or creator of it.He did hold views then he no longer holds (don’t we all?) and the essay written by him was a personal account of abuse he recived as a child by his father,(Physical,not sexual)and was never meant for public consumptionwhich has angred him greatly.More detail will be forthcoming in the finished piece at Gaynz.com.
0 0
Report
March 27, 2005 10:33am
Gooner

Yes right, you’re pretty much right! Jim Peron’s ‘crime’ is that he allegedly told a mistruth, and had an opinion 20 years ago. The Inquisition led by the Christian Fundamentalists doesn’t like either.
0 0
Report
March 27, 2005 7:12pm
AL

Look what some idiot called dagny said to me after I pointed out the tone of Lockes comments might get them in trouble (I didnt say anything about Peron or comment on their alleged facts):

–>>You look like his messenger boy Antarctic spreading those threats around, not a good look darlin’, people might think the Libertarian message includes justifications for men getting it off with kids. Do you not care that he lied to you or did you know he was lying, is that why you think getting on a public soapboax and going all look at poor victim me, I hate kiddie rapists what worse thing could be said about someone than that they support something this horrible *sob* *sniff* violins wax on… poor Jim being accused of NAMBLA links, it wasn’t his fault the previous owner stocked the shelves with it and selling a book does not mean you support the message, no, not even if you write the book for them and slam everyone who disagrees with them, and give them shelter and hire the poor pedophiles to sell your books for you….

Can you pass a message back to Jimmy-James for me sweetie? Tell him Lindsay’s defamation papers must have gotten lost in the mail because they never arrived, he might want to resend them.

My reply:

I am not the ‘message boy’ for anyone. Neither am I a ‘libertarian’ or member of any other political group. Nor do I personally know anyone involved in this matter. Your tantrum is entirely unwarranted, and presumedly caused by paranoia as you have no basis to assume I am ‘in’ with any other people involved in this issue.

You’re use of the term ‘darling’, and various other infantilising terms, does not de-bitch the accusatory tone of your comment, but it does highlight the nature of your personality to anyone reading this. You have done the Locke Foundation’s image a great disservice.
ENDS

What a fruitcake. Its certainly hard for me to take the Locke Foundation seriously now.
0 0
Report
March 27, 2005 8:17pm
Gooner

And you took them seriously before?
0 0
Report
March 27, 2005 9:04pm
AL

Benefit of doubt.
0 0
Report
March 27, 2005 9:21pm
James

Don’t worry guys,things are in motion.Jim has this morning posted on Free students network an appeal for all evidence of defemation from all and any sources you know of connected with his case.If you were told about these allegations or were directed to a website or other infomation source by anyone spreading these stories let him know.His lawyer is collecting everything and putting it together in what will be a once in a century shit storm for those involved.Hope you’ve got that cardboard box picked out Madds,you’ll be in it soon! LOL!!!! 🙂
0 0
Report
March 28, 2005 9:40am
Madeleine

Winston Peters claimed Jim’s current bookstore is a porn shop when in fact it is a bookstore that sells some porn. Winston also made a throw away comment that Jim was a paedophile which from the evidence I have seen was incorrect.

However, the bulk of Winston’s allegations about Jim Peron focused mostly on his alleged links to NAMBLA. (Read the Hansards transcripts thoroughly)

Jim spent a couple of weeks giving interviews and writing articles denying all the claims including that he had ever had links to NAMBLA. He fingered the former owner as the one who allowed NAMBLA material and meetings into the store and portrayed himself as having the moral backbone to ask them to leave.

Jim attacked Lindsay Perigo as the initiator of the NAMBLA links claim and his friends sent Lindsay hatemail and gaynz.com called Lindsay a wormtongue for betraying one of his own.

Lots of people felt sorry for Jim and got mad at Winston and Lindsay and believed the former owner of Jim’s store was the real NAMBLA supporter.

We looked into the NAMBLA links allegations. We found that Jim did have NAMBLA links in the past and was an active promoter of paedophilia contrary to what he spent two weeks telling the media and New Zealand. We found that the previous owner had no time for NAMBLA at all and did not have them meeting in the store and did not place contractual requirements onto Jim to keep selling pro adult/child sex material when he took over contrary to what Jim told New Zealand.

I think that lying on the scale that Jim lied on to the media and public, slandering other people and standing back and doing nothing when his supporters slandered those people in his defence is wrong.

I also think that advocating paedophilia is wrong even if the view was abandoned sometime in the mid 90’s. It is the kind of mistaken view that is grossly more mistaken than the kinds of live and learn views that most of us have mistakenly held to.

Madeleine
0 0
Report
March 28, 2005 9:57am
Gooner

Mad, what section in the Crimes Act is lying to the public found in (if he did, in fact, lie)? I am just trying to locate it. What’s the penalty?

Who made you the superintendant of the lying police?

I have supported Jim here Madeleine. Please tell me who I have ‘slandered’, when and how?.

Who has Jim ‘slandered’, when and how?

You are losing the small portion of credibility you had left.
0 0
Report
March 28, 2005 10:16am
James

Keep it up Madds ,this is just getting better and better.How deep is this grave you are digging for yourself and Matt going to be…? Throw yourselves on Jims mercy now and you may be left with the shirts on your backs….but I doubt it! 🙂
0 0
Report
March 28, 2005 10:19am
gazzadelsud

awww poor little dunedin christians, only running witchhunts because they think they are a public service. So selfless, so Christian, so misunderstood, no nassssty little motives at all my preciousssss.

Getting pretty scary out there in the world of consequences is it?

hahaha
0 0
Report
March 28, 2005 10:39am
AL

Free students network is a libz email list?
0 0
Report
March 28, 2005 2:16pm
Madeleine

Free Students Network describes itself as a classical liberal email list. http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/freestudentsnetwork

Gooner do try to keep up the people slandered have been named more than once and I never said that Jim committed a crime – read David Farrar’s original posting:

“but do note that the original allegations of being a paedophile and running a porn shop are agreed by everyone to be without foundation. The debate is now focused on what his views were and are.”

This is what the topic of this discussion is.

Madeleine
0 0
Report
March 28, 2005 2:50pm
James

AL, FSN was set up after the World Freedom Summit in Rotorua last year which Jim organised.Its purpose was to allow Libertairian minded students from all parties or unafiliated to gather online and plan and organise pro liberty activities and stratagies.Unfortunatly there was a glich in that anyone could join and of course “everyone” did. Matt and Madds and Glenn popped up and began debating the Libertairian positions expoused on the site. It was never intended as a debate group and Jim tried to get the gatecrashes to leave.Needless to say they didn’t and things got heated.Madds will no doubt claim otherwise but thats what happened.This trial by accusation of Jim by Matt and Madds is really about getting rid of a political enermy who stood in the way of them taking over the “Liberal movement” as it were.
0 0
Report
March 28, 2005 3:17pm
AL

I see that a loonie on the Locke Foundation blog is now asking if I am gay – im sure they will make my girlfriends giggle.

All i wanted to do was cover both angles of the story, as it were, and instead i get insulted by daggy and then asked a ridiculous off-topic personal question by some stranger i’ve never met before.

Next thing you know they’ll be asking for my home address so they can stop by and ‘have a wee chat’ with me.
0 0
Report
March 28, 2005 4:24pm
Gooner

Yes Al, I got asked…hang on, there’s someone at the door.
0 0
Report
March 28, 2005 8:23pm
Graham watson

I know Jim, the Flannagans, Glenn, David Bisman and many others posting on this topic. It is truly a sad state of affairs.

As a childhood victim of a christian paedophile I am very interested in this topic.

It is my view that those who wish to investigate the allegations against Jim are entitled to do so.

They should be able to do so without the abuse delivered by some of the anonymous posters (hiding behing pseudonyms), and some of the misrepresenation about the FSN spread by the likes of James Jenkins. No one muscled their way on to this network, or was being kicked off. Such is fanciful nonsense.

It is also sad to see such a long term and fearless campaigner for gay rights as David Bisman attacked (again by those hiding behind pseudonyms) because he gave qualified support to anti paedophile views.

Initially I saw this affair as a cheap and scurrilous attack by Peters on Jim, with nothing in it. This is likely still the case, but legitimate questions have been raised which no doubt Jim will need to answer.

I have valued Jims contribution to public debate at least as much as that of the Flannagans, so hope the questions raised can be satisfactorily addressed. I am aware of others who share this view, and with me hoping for the best.

It would sadden me further if this post elicited any of the pathetic responses from those hiding behind pseudonyms who seem to attack anyone who is prepared to have an open mind. I believe these have detracted from the quality and strength of Jims defence and add nothing of value to any discussion.

Cheers
graham watson
0 0
Report
March 29, 2005 12:16am
AL

Graham, I completely agree that the questions raised should be looked into. But as someone who tried to cover every side of this story, I am now attacked by some people on the Locke Foundation blog for NOT taking sides. And that is not on.

I was the first blogger to link to Lockes newest allegations, and my main post on it can be seen here:
http://labourscandals.blogspot.com/2005/03/peron-in-80s.html
a related post:
http://labourscandals.blogspot.com/2005/03/peron-case-to-get-murkier-before.html

My anonymity is only maintained because I run a political blog which might get me into trouble at my place of work. Also I don’t want my real name around as if I’m part of some conspiracy, as occurred on the Locke Foundation blog.

I don’t personally know anyone involved in this matter, nor any of the groups. Whos Glenn and Bisman?
0 0
Report
March 29, 2005 1:51am
James

Graham Watson is a lying sack of shit and will be exposed as so.As someone who is a friend of Jim Perons and who new the background of the setup of FSN I laugh at these secound handers who claim to have the full knowledge of events.Its in court that truth will be seperated from falsehood.Matt and Madds are retreating every day from what they have claimed about Jim and its obvious to all that they are reaching in desperation for sometyhing to kling to.
0 0
Report
March 29, 2005 7:08am
Graham watson

Sorry Al, I accept the need for anonymity in your case. It was more to other posters I was referring anyhow.

You will notice I half expected to be attacked also for having an open mind. It seems already someone called James has attacked me and uses argument ad hominem.

I wonder if this was the same James who was embarrasingly exposed on FSN for trying to orchestrate some sort of campaign against the Flannagans. Maybe this is what he means when he suggests there were attempts to kick them off the loop. It would not surprise me if this is the same person, as his trademark is peurile ad hominem, rather than fact and rational argument.
0 0
Report
March 29, 2005 9:38am
cadmus

test
0 0
Report
March 29, 2005 9:54am
gazzadelsud

Jim’s “defence”? from who – a pack of self styled vigilantes who admit that they have no evidence of any criminal activity whatsoever.

Its the Locke “foundation” that started and widely publicised its “investigation” – does this investigation pass any of the tests for evidence in a court of law?

How will we ever know now that they have clodhopped their way through the story with their fixed view of what the narrative ought to be?

It seems to me that these people have finally found a good source of legal advice. Well its about time.

look at how their story has changed over the weekend from accusatory certainty to – oh we always knew that there was no evidence of a crime, but of course he might have thought bad things (a long time ago) and for this we must destroy him.

I stand by everything I have said. and no i have never met peron and likely never will. For me this about principle. I don’t like vigilantes.

(readjusts lone ranger mask and rides off into the sunset).
0 0
Report
March 29, 2005 10:43am
James

Yes Graham Im the same James and you are still a lying sack of shit.I never ‘orchestrated” any campaign against the Flannagans.I accidently posted what was a private email to FSN.The email,as you well know since you had a “holier than thou” blub about it, was to a friend from another group who enjoyed debating fundies and other nutters and so I thought he might like to join FSN (he is a student) and engage Matt and Madds,thats it!There was no “masterplan” to bring down the grusome twosome,just letting someone know where a good debate was at….Jim was well within his rights to ask M & M to leave the group,they were not Libertairians and so were somewhere they were not wanted.m & M had used this bullying tactic before to bludgeon a gay site with their presence so nothings changed…
0 0
Report
March 29, 2005 11:13am
Graham watson

I see James you are still unable to desist from ad hominem. This further weakens your position, you should give more respect to this blog.

Your attacks on others merely tell us something about you, not those you try to attack.

As for you orchestrating a campaign vs the Flannagans you are correct, you did not do so, because, as you rightly point out, you were exposed while trying to orchestrate such by posting a private email to the FSN loop. You were stopped in your tracks.

Re Jim suggesting the Flannagans should leave the FSN site this does not mean there were attempts to kick them off, merely that a member of the network, like you and I, not a moderator or owner, did not like them present because they represented a different brand of liberalism from the ‘pure’ brand of some others.

This would be the same as saying there were attempts to kick you off because I have contacted you suggesting religious intolerance and ad hominem statements are not appropriate on the network. In fact this is probably more valid.

Cheers
graham watson
0 0
Report
March 29, 2005 2:50pm
Madeleine

James wrote:

“Graham Watson is a lying sack of shit and will be exposed as so.”

When? Still waiting?

“As someone who is a friend of Jim Perons and who new the background of the setup of FSN I laugh at these secound handers who claim to have the full knowledge of events.”

I laugh that if this was indeed the setup and the rules that you assisted to draft the description on FSN on yahoo groups that says it is a group for Classical Liberal students – immediately beneath the inviting “join this group!” button.

If it is a group for a sect of inbred Libertarians and limited to only Jim’s friends then why is this description there? How would anyone even find this out without clicking on the join this group button and why would anyone who did so even assume to ask whether the description on the group’s homepage was accurate or not?

Neither the owner of any of the moderators have asked us to leave and they presumably wrote the description.

“Its in court that truth will be seperated from falsehood.”

About that, my court papers must have been lost in the mail because I have not received them yet… Can you ask Jim’s lawyer to send them again?

“Matt and Madds are retreating every day from what they have claimed about Jim”

No we are not. The Locke Foundation has been adding to its report ever since we released the fact we had made findings of fact and had obtained a full copy of Unbound on Thurs 24 March – less than a week ago.

Today more evidence was added to the site.

Our claims are increasing, not decreasing.

“and its obvious to all that they are reaching in desperation for sometyhing to kling to.”

Who is this all that things are obvious too? All the people quitting lists that Jim Peron is on? All the people making their own statements against Jim Peron? Perhaps its his former friends, some of whom are now volunteering for the Locke Foundation to gather more evidence?

We have lost no supporters in this and gained many.

Perhaps the obvious to all statement was a reference to your earlier post:

“I’ve just spent the last hour and a half reading a full indepth interview with Jim that he has just sent through to his web discussion group.I am not at liberty to quote it as it is in a rough state and will be polished up for posting on Gaynz.”

I have copies of all of these postings forwarded from ex-Jim Peron supporters on those lists and I am at liberty to quote them so contact me should you wish to read them.

“In in Jim explains in great depth everything that has gone on and explains a lot.He knew nothing of “Unbound” and was not the publisher or creator of it.”

Thats not what the contributors who were published in Unbound said James when I contacted them and asked how to locate Free Forum Books or the Editor – they said they had no idea what had become of Free Forum Books but the editor was a man called Jim Peron who left San Francisco in 1980 and went overseas.

Jim Peron is the editor of Unbound, the creator and the author of some of its material.

“He did hold views then he no longer holds (don’t we all?)”

No we do not. I think you will find most people never held to much worse than thinking the Alliances tax policy made sense or that getting so pissed you could not move for three days was fun and a good night out. Most of us did not write articles and publish our own magazines in favour of adult/child sex.

“and the essay written by him was a personal account of abuse he recived as a child by his father,(Physical,not sexual)and was never meant for public consumptionwhich has angred him greatly.”

This the article in which he writes stridently in favour of the human rights of peadophiles and slams the gay movement for refusing to accept the adult/child sex movement as part of the glbt community.

For once I am in admiration of the GLBT community.

“More detail will be forthcoming in the finished piece at Gaynz.com.”

Yes, I just read it.

Interesting indeed that it backs up our report.

Madeleine
0 0
Report
March 30, 2005 12:49am
Madeleine

Posted by: gazzadelsud at March 29, 2005 10:43 AM

“Jim’s “defence”? from who – a pack of self styled vigilantes who admit that they have no evidence of any criminal activity whatsoever.”

We never once said we had evidence of criminal activity. We never even tried to look into that aspect. Produce evidence that we ever said it – a URL and a copy and paste will suffice.

“Its the Locke “foundation” that started and widely publicised its “investigation””

We started our investigation – who else could have started our investigation other than ourselves?!? However we did not widely publicise our investigation until we had a conclusion. It was gaynz.com who leaked that we were involved by breaching off the record journalism conventions.

We have issued 1 media statement on the topic and taken a few phone calls.

” – does this investigation pass any of the tests for evidence in a court of law?”

Yes, all is first hand testimony or material written by Jim Peron himself or documentation. Every claim is sourced.

“How will we ever know now that they have clodhopped their way through the story with their fixed view of what the narrative ought to be?”

By going through our report and checking our sources to see if we were fair with context and inference. The report in on our website.

“It seems to me that these people have finally found a good source of legal advice. Well its about time.”

Thankyou. All legal advice taken to date by the Locke Foundation was from me. Our honorary solicitor is very tied up currently with a big case and getting married so he said I should handle it unless I got stuck.

When he is available again I will discuss the merits of defence of truth v honest opinion with him if Jim’s lawyer manages to put our names on an envelope… still waiting.

I will also be discussing with him who we will be placing on notice for the defamatory comments made against us. For example on this blog page there are some and we have the option of placing on notice the poster, David Farrar and the blog provider/host.

“look at how their story has changed over the weekend from accusatory certainty to – oh we always knew that there was no evidence of a crime, but of course he might have thought bad things (a long time ago) and for this we must destroy him.”

Our story has only changed in the sense we have added more evidence to our dossier.

Read the statement on our website made to the media on Thurs 24 March and compare that with the position on our website we hold now. We have added claims, not retracted them.

“I stand by everything I have said. and no i have never met peron and likely never will. For me this about principle. I don’t like vigilantes.”

I stand by everything I have said. I too have never met Peron and likely never will. For me this is about principle. I don’t like liars, slanderers and peddlers of paedophilia and I don’t want them in my country.

“(readjusts lone ranger mask and rides off into the sunset).”

Wasn’t the lone ranger a vigilante?

Madeleine
0 0
Report
March 30, 2005 1:07am
Gooner

Mad, would you like to reproduce on this site the email you sent to Dr Frits on 28 March 2004? It has gone from your Locke site.
0 0
Report
March 30, 2005 9:08am
Madeleine

It has not gone from our site, it is here:
http://www.lockefoundation.org.nz/Testimony2.pdf

We have put up a pdf of the email I sent Dr Frits Bernard and his reply that can be accessed from the research and articles page.

Mads
0 0
Report
March 30, 2005 9:41am
Gooner

My mistake, apologies.
0 0
Report
March 30, 2005 9:43am
Christopher Banks

Posted by: James at March 27, 2005 10:33 AM :
“I’ve just spent the last hour and a half reading a full indepth interview with Jim that he has just sent through to his web discussion group.I am not at liberty to quote it as it is in a rough state and will be polished up for posting on Gaynz.”

Just to clarify, as the author of Parts 1 – 3 of “The Peron Allegations” on GayNZ.com:

(1) The “interview” referred to above was not commissioned or conducted by GayNZ.com, and no agreement was ever made for its whole or partial reproduction on the site.

(2) Questions have been sent to Mr Peron via email since he left the country, as more allegations have surfaced. The answers to those questions make up Mr Peron’s responses in Parts 1 and 2 of our coverage.

(3) Over the weekend, we received a copy of a lengthy “interview” written up in conversational question-and-answer style, complete with quips and light repartee, unsolicited. We were unsure why were sent it, as no context was given. I understand this has now been published elsewhere, in some cases with my email header at the top, giving the impression that an actual interview took place. It did not. However, some of these “interview” answers have been used in Part 3 of our coverage, which is now online.

(4) GayNZ.com does not intend to publish the “interview” feature as we had no involvement in its preparation.

best,
CB
0 0
Report
March 30, 2005 10:32am
James

True Chris, I was wrong.I did not read what Jim actually said and I am reponsible for posting that this was a gaynz interview.Jim has corrected me and has made it clear that the interview was put together by him and a friend as a way to fully answer the allegations against him.He was then going to send it on to Gaynz as a template for an indepth interview.I was wrong and have done you, Gaynz and Jim a diservice,my apologise to all concerned.
0 0
Report
March 30, 2005 6:16pm

More comments:

1
2
›

« Blog Audiences

Enjoying Auckland »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 13K other subscribers

Highlights

Target achieved II
Good progress on attendance
Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments

Top Stories

General Debate 03 June 2026
Another British policing scandal
A win for democracy
General Debate 04 June 2026
Meet the Greens - ACC
Democrat says lock up the Jews
$600k on a website for a building!
General Debate 02 June 2026
Of course GP wait times will skyrocket under Labour
Abolishing HR

Recent Posts

Abolishing HR 4 June 2026
General Debate 04 June 2026 4 June 2026
Meet the Greens – ACC 4 June 2026
Democrat says lock up the Jews 3 June 2026
Another British policing scandal 3 June 2026
General Debate 03 June 2026 3 June 2026
A win for democracy 3 June 2026
$600k on a website for a building! 2 June 2026
Set housing outcomes not outputs 2 June 2026
General Debate 02 June 2026 2 June 2026
Of course GP wait times will skyrocket under Labour 2 June 2026
Which language should be used first? 1 June 2026

Recent Comments

Abolishing HR
Paulus
General Debate 04 June 2026
Paulus
General Debate 04 June 2026
Paulus
Abolishing HR
imalwaysright
Abolishing HR
Boy Geoff
Meet the Greens – ACC
Ghost
Meet the Greens – ACC
RoboRob
Abolishing HR
B A W
General Debate 04 June 2026
Phronesis
General Debate 04 June 2026
imalwaysright
General Debate 04 June 2026
SGA
General Debate 04 June 2026
kowtow
General Debate 04 June 2026
Handyman
Meet the Greens – ACC
Nigel Kearney
General Debate 04 June 2026
RoboRob

Links

"The principal view of human laws is, or ought always to be, to explain, protect, and enforce such rights as are absolute, which in themselves are few and simple."
Not PC
We Are a Country That Decided Housing Was The Economy
No Minister
My Opening Statement for the UATX Caplan-Jones Immigration Rematch
Utopia
Woman of the day
Hompaddock
Open Mike 04/06/2026
The Standard
Playing with numbers.
Kiwipolitico
A lot of fuss about a simple Bill – its purpose (to make English an official language) is spelled out in 22 words
Point of Order
A crime
No Right Turn
Another non-tariff barrier
Offsetting Behaviour
Rugby Premiership Predictions for Round 18
Stats Chat
Budget 2026
NZCPR
UK Conversion Therapy Ban, Digital ID, Rallies, Elections
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
A central banker’s fiction
Croaking Cassandra
THE WORKING FROM HOME RACKET BY PUBLIC SERVANTS
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Get Vaccinated Tomorrow Or Shut Your Pie Hole
Cactus Kate
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker

[email protected]

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

© 2003-2026 David Farrar

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d

%d