General Debate 25 October 2013

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment185

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (185)

Login to comment or vote

liarbors a joke

Cactus has probably found a bit of sausage..
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 6:49pm
Manolo

Cactus Chuang has found her Len Brown?
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 6:50pm
OneTrack

Tom -“All of this would have likely been sorted out long ago were it not for the fact that..”

That the Palestinians can’t seem to control their urges to fire rockets into, or send suicide bombers into, Israel?

Maybe if the Palestinians started acting like rational human beings, the Israeli’s would have more reason to engage constructively with them.
4 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 6:50pm
Nostradamus

Hmmm… a weird stand-up comedian who performs naked from waist down and makes rape jokes.

Truscott’s entire 50-minute show is a witty, occasionally dazzling take-down of the rape joke, which continues to be a set staple for certain macho comedians, from Jimmy Carr to Louis CK. As she points out, “It’s been a big year for rape in comedy”, what with the American stand-up Daniel Tosh tackling a female heckler with the words “Wouldn’t it be funny if that girl got raped by five guys, right now?”

Quick – someone tell Pete George that he’s needed!
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 7:08pm
liarbors a joke

“Three … …protestors who damaged the Waihopai spy base in Marlborough now face $1.2 million damages claim, after the Court of Appeal found against them.”

Good job…stinking dirty hippies , get ya cheque books out ..
4 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 7:28pm
nasska

The final moments of the CCCP. 🙂

Ref: https://www.dropbox.com/s/5z0zrb3tc4ev9kv/variousshit1.jpg
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 7:34pm
nasska

Bevan Chuang reckons that Len has a problem with premature ejaculation.

He says that if she couldn’t keep up with him, then it’s her bloody problem.
6 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 8:00pm
Pete George

It’s not so much keeping up and more catching up on Brown by the sound of what’s brewing at Whale Oil.
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 8:05pm
Nostradamus

Pete George:

What’s brewing at Whale Oil?

Edit: I assume you’re referring to this post?
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 8:18pm
Pete George

Cam is trying to push Brown to come clean to stop more embarrassment for others coming out. He said on radio yesterday there were three more at least, and is dropping some fairly obvious hints, at least subordinate. PR staff discord apparently. Suggesting weekend papers will reveal more.

And this: http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2013/10/quick-summary-facts/
And especially this: http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2013/10/ethnic-peoples-advisory-panel-epap
0 3
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 8:22pm
Jack5

If you want to see cruelty to animals, read below how these Indonesian villagers tormented the wild orangutang.

New Zealand is a co-villain in this. The orangutangs’ Borneo habitat is being cleared mainly for palm-oil plantations, and the NZ dairy industry helps in this by buying shiploads of palm kernel for supplementary cattle feed.

As an animal sympathiser, when you see those villagers tormenting the orangutang, it’s almost enough to make you wish, that if the orangutangs are driven to extinction, these humans are nuked into oblivion after them.

It also reminds you of the link between cruelty to animals and cruelty to humans, given the emering details of Indonesians’ genocide of Papuans west of PNG.

Borneo, like West Papua, didn’t have to be part of Indonesia, but now the Indonesians have swamped it with their own. You can thank the mindless ultra anti-colonialism after World War 2 for this, and it was stronglyh backed by the US.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2475824/Orangutan-tied-taunted-cruel-mob-climb-pole-rescued-British-charity.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 8:24pm
Johnboy

Surely Len hasn’t been fucking the whole Howick Tai Chi club? 🙂
4 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 8:24pm
Nostradamus

Thanks Pete.

Quoting from Whaleoil’s post:

In spite of huge pressure from my supporters who would like to see more blood on the floor, I’ve concentrated for days on sending overt and coded messages to Len Brown that the game is up.

I’m sad to say, he’s too stubborn. And as a result the process has progressed to the point where some, not all, of his other affairs will hit the media in the near future.

I have to say Len, either you are as thick as two planks or you have been getting dreadful advice.

You never could continue as Mayor. The only answer was to stand for re-election right at the beginning. The only answer. Everything else would lead to this point. And here we are.

Some have labelled it blackmail. But in truth, this “lust” people think I have to make mince meat of political figures, it doesn’t exist to the point where I throw bystanders under the bus just to claim your scalp.

I’m sorry to say, that’s now out of my hands.

You will be embarrassed even more. You will end up standing down. And you will take those poor women’s reputations down with you.

What would be interesting for me, assuming there’s a weekend media story, is whether the story is based on one or more signed affidavits. Given how the Len Brown saga has played out so far, with its various twists and turns, I just can’t see the media going out on a limb unless people are prepared to put their name to a document that has legal substance.

Johnboy: Are you suggesting that Tai Chi would be a good way for Len Brown to pace himself when it really matters?
8 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 8:32pm
nasska

PG

If being exposed for whacking himself off in the mayoral offices can’t embarrass him enough to hand in his notice then there’s no known act of sex that could be revealed that would dislodge the arsehole….not even if it involved bunny rabbits, chopped liver & a gimp suit.

The only thing that will get him is proof of dishonesty & even then the Labour sycophants would spin for him.
6 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 8:38pm
Johnboy

Not at all Leonardo. I just thought that a predator like Len may be targeting vulnerable Chinese folk looking for a quick relief of their tensions! 🙂
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 8:39pm
Pete George

Another minor twist today:

Webster sorry over Brown comments

Auckland City Councillor Penny Webster has issued a public apology to National MP Mark Mitchell for embroiling him in the Len Brown scandal.

In a statement, Webster said she regretted comments by Mitchell about “skeletons” in Mayor Len Brown’s closet had been used “for political cheap shots” and character assassination.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9328075/Webster-sorry-over-Brown-comments

Media had tried to make a story out of this.
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 8:39pm
Johnboy

“there’s no known act of sex that could be revealed that would dislodge the arsehole”

A Gay Lexington Steel could maybe do it Nasska? 🙂
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 8:43pm
SPC

A majority of Americans would, for the first time, support the legalisation of marijuana, the Gallup organisation reports, suggesting a cultural shift across the country on a scale similar to that seen on gay marriage.

Taken nearly a year after voters in Colorado and Washington broke new ground by voting to legalise the sale of the drug, the survey indicates a change in attitudes that is swift and significant. A full 58 per cent of respondents said they would favour decriminalisation, compared with 50 per cent in 2011. When Gallup first posed the question in 1969 – during the blossoming of “flower power” – only 12 per cent supported it.

Just like gay marriage, now legal in 14 states, the decriminalisation movement has plenty of space to grow. Last week, the second highest elected official in California, Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, said he was ready to legalise the drug in the state and advocates are preparing to put the issue to Californian voters next year. The question is also being debated in other states and even some municipalities, such as Portland in Maine.

Some impetus may even have come from the federal government. Even though it still lists marijuana as a prohibited substance, in August the Justice Department informed Washington and Colorado that it would not intervene as they prepare for the first marijuana cash registers to start ringing in the new year.

“Americans are increasingly recognising that marijuana is less harmful than they’ve been led to believe,” Mason Tvert, a spokesman for Marijuana Policy Project, said in response to the poll. “I think it’s time to regulate marijuana like alcohol and most Americans appear to agree. We’re seeing support for ending prohibition in states across the country and efforts are being made to change state laws.”

Not surprisingly, the Gallup poll shows strongest support among younger Americans and those who call themselves political independents.

“Whatever the reasons for Americans’ greater acceptance of marijuana, it is likely that this momentum will spur further legalisation efforts across the United States,” said Art Swift, Gallup’s managing editor.

While personal consumption may be one factor – answering a different survey in August 38 per cent of Americans admitted to having tried the drug – there is also the increasing popularity of marijuana for medical use. “The increasing prevalence of medical marijuana as a socially acceptable way to alleviate symptoms of diseases such as arthritis, and as a way to mitigate side effects of chemotherapy, may have also contributed,” Mr Swift suggested.

While Washington’s hands-off approach so far has been welcomed by Colorado and Washington it has angered others. This week, the Attorney General, Eric Holder, suffered a public scolding at the annual meeting of the International Association of Police Chiefs in Philadelphia.

“We are disappointed with the decision,” said the group’s president, Craig Steckler. “We think we’ve opened the floodgates to people who want to fully legalise all drugs.” America, he said, was on “slippery slope”.

Both states have spent the last 12 months putting in place a series of controls to regulate the sale of the drug.   Washington is preparing to approve the opening of more than 300 approved retail “pot shops”.

The release of the Gallup poll meanwhile coincided with the opening in Denver, Colorado, of the 2013 International Drug Policy Reform Conference, to be attended by more than a thousand experts in related areas of law enforcement, treatment and healthcare. Also on hand in Denver will be top government officials from Uruguay which is in the middle of planning legalised sales of marijuana.

The impact of the debate on national politics in the United States is not yet clear. Chris Christie, the Governor of New Jersey and a likely Republican presidential runner in 2016, has signed a bill increasing access to medical marijuana, including for children.

And Matt Yglesias, economics writer for the online Slate magazine, tweeted: “I forecast high odds that Hillary Clinton will “evolve” on marijuana prohibition in the next couple of years.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/support-for-legalising-marijuana-reaches-an-alltime-high-in-the-us-8899796.html
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 8:46pm
nasska

I’d be willing for someone to give it a shot JB?

That nice bloke Charles who joined the UN…..do you think he would be up to it? 🙂
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 8:46pm
Dennis Horne

Remember, Len: Give a dog a dirty name you might as well shoot it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 8:48pm
Nostradamus

Johnboy:

You’re needed over here. Something about a road of national significance and a small (but not token) contribution you could make 🙂
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 8:49pm
Johnboy

A dirty old dog named Dennis
Became a bit of a menace
The dog ranger a clot
Fired a loose shot
And KB is now doing the penance! 🙂
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 8:53pm
nasska

That was a touching idea Nostradamus…..just beautiful. 🙂
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 8:54pm
SPC

It is interesting that whaleoil thinks that if the Mayor having had more than one affair it would make some difference.

Why?

The public issue at hand was/is use of public money, declaring any freebies and not using his Mayoral office to favour those he was having personal relationships with, not how many women were involved.

whaleoil/CS is attempting to embarrass the Mayor out of office, by disclosing detail that undermines respect for the person in office and inferring a past pattern of behaviour, rather than just one affair.

Given his own cheating on his wife with another man’s wife and who knows how many others, his hypocrisy is astonishing.
0 8
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 9:11pm
Nostradamus

Why people have sex:

Amy Muise and her colleagues at the University of Toronto say there are two main reasons we get it on: approach goals and avoidance goals.

A person who has sex for “approach goals” is motivated by positive outcomes, such as feeling closer to a partner or physical pleasure. In contrast, a person who has sex for “avoidance goals” is focused on avoiding negative outcomes, such as disappointing a partner or preventing a fight.

This analysis raises more questions than it seems to answer.

– Did Len Brown have sex for “approach goals” or “avoidance goals”?
– Did those goals depend on whether he had sex in the Ngati Whatua room (with a taniwha looking on) or somewhere else?
– Did those goals change when he was discovered by the security guard?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 9:27pm
Dennis Horne

A dirty old man named Johnboy
Aroused himself just to annoy
A poor old wanker called Len
Who came before going “when”
“Never mind”, he said, she’s only a decoy.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 9:28pm
Pete George

Brown said earlier this week ”I have made full disclosure”. If it’s been found that he hasn’t made full disclosure then his word can’t be trusted. He could try and remain as mayor but he would be discredited and his position would be untenable.
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 9:29pm
Dennis Horne

@Nostradamus. Approach goals or avoidance goals?

Own goals?
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 9:31pm
nasska

….” Did Len Brown have sex for “approach goals” or “avoidance goals”?”….

You’re trying to complicate things….he was just trying to relieve pressure in the mayoral ballsack. 🙂
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 9:32pm
Nostradamus

Pete:

I’m not sure that’s how Brown would see it.

In political-speak. “I have made full disclosure” could – with the convenience of retrospectivity – mean no more and no less than “I have made full disclosure about the affair with Bevan Chuang”. Judging by Brown’s approach to date, if another affair were to come to light, I think he’d just shift the goal-posts.
4 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 9:33pm
SPC

PG, I tend to agree with Nostradamus, however unless Brown was responding to the question of are there any other affairs to disclose, the term full disclosure could quite plausibly be only in relation to the matter them before the media. So it’s not really a shifting of the goalposts – the media reporting there were other women is what would be shifting the goal-posts/be a new development.

whaleoil has for some time inferred that there were other women to could forward, so this is not a new development of itself.

It was probably a bluff, given it is totally inconsistent with CS’s claim that he knew only of the texts and no affair with BC until quite recently. Presumably he wanted/wants the media to ask Brown if there were other women. The purpose of which is to portray him as a liar if he denies it and another woman comes forward. It is called trying to get the media to ask him a leading question about his private life. If it asked why not ask every elected politician whether they have had affairs (and how many) when in office or running for office.
0 3
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 9:53pm
Johnboy

Len certainly made a “fool disclosure” to the poor old security guard. 🙂
4 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 9:55pm
Nostradamus

SPC:

PG, I tend to agree with Nostradamus, however unless Brown was responding to the question of are there any other affairs to disclose, the term full disclosure could quite plausibly be only in relation to the matter them before the media. So it’s not really a shifting of the goalposts – the media reporting there were other women is what would be shifting the goal-posts/be a new development.

Can you point to something that Brown disclosed (as distinct from simply confirming what Chuang had already disclosed in her affidavit and public statements)?
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 9:59pm
SPC

Once again I agree, but it’s whaleoil who is using the term full disclosure (in relation to his admission) and trying to portray this as in connection to all of his past infidelity so he can claim that Brown lied if another woman came forward.
0 3
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 10:05pm
Nostradamus

SPC:

I’ve taken a closer look at this issue of full disclosure.

This is what Brown said to Orsman (NZ Herald):

Is there anything more to come out that people need to know about?

There had better not be. I have made full disclosure with regard to this matter and it has been horrendous for my family, and that is it.

Have there been other affairs?

There is a matter on record in terms of my first marriage but I am not going to go into that … suffice to say that is a matter that has been acknowledged. It was reported. Not that I’m aware [in recent times].

The words “I have made full disclosure with regard to this matter” are ambiguous.

My two points (as noted above) are:

– Brown arguably hasn’t made any disclosure (in the sense of putting new and previously-undisclosed information in the public domain).

– But, for what it’s worth, the qualifying words “with regard to this matter” allow Brown wiggle-room to say he made full disclosure in relation to the Bevan Chuang affair (which is a form of limited disclosure if there have been other affairs).

This is where things get interesting. Brown was also asked if there had been any other affairs. I interpret “[in recent times]” (in square brackets) after “Not that I’m aware” as being an editorial clarification made by the NZ Herald – the usual convention is to clarify, not edit, the original words used. Brown’s response was “Not that I’m aware”. This amounts to a specific denial that he’s had other affairs besides the historical one – clearly, if he had, then he’d be aware of them.

In my view, if another affair were to come to light, the words “I have made full disclosure with regard to this matter” wouldn’t save Brown from allegations that he misled the public.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 10:34pm
SPC

Nostradamus, no I do not agree. As I comprehend it, it was to a full disclosure in relation to matters related to the now known of public affair with B.C, he then mentions what is already public knowledge that he had an affair during his earlier marriage. He adds he is apparently unaware of any “media reporting” of any other affair – he avoided answering the question directly by tacitly implying he would only talk about affairs which were known to the public.

If it he was to be required to confess to any, each and every affair, why not ask every elected politician whether they have had affairs (and how many) when in office or running for office?
0 3
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 10:46pm
Nostradamus

SPC:

The specific question asked was whether there have been other affairs – not whether he was aware of media reports about other affairs.

With reference to that specific question, could you please explain the process of reasoning by which you interpret “Not that I’m aware” as somehow meaning “I’m not aware of any media reports about other affairs that I’ve had”?
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 10:54pm
SPC

A comment on some earlier discussion of the ME question.

The Israelis are culpable for land occupied since 1949 and a subsequent attempt to annex it (in 1949 the UN said it would not recognise any land annexed after conquest and occupation). The Israelis attempt to subvert that by proposing that the peace process include land swaps whereby they offer parcels of land for land they have annexed (unrecognised by other nations) or want to annex.

Matters before 1947, when the UN recognised the partition of the Palestinian mandate for two states are irrelevant. Jewish migration to Palestine before then occurred with the permission of the ruling Ottomon empire and British empires and both Jew and Palestinian Arabs have a history of residence in their homeland.

In terms of law, the UN decisions on the post 1967 occupation of Palestinian state area land tacitly accept the events of 1948-49, when the 1948-49 fighting led to the expansion of the Jewish state occupied area, as having occurred before the 1949 prohibition on annexing land taken during war.

Thus in terms of legitimate occupation, the state of Israel has it for the area it occupied until May 1967, but not for new areas occupied afterwards.
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 11:03pm
SPC

Nostradamus, yes I know what question was asked, I was simply explaining his answer – effectively that he would only talk about (admit or otherwise) affairs that had already been reported in the media.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 11:08pm
Nostradamus

SPC:

I really don’t think anyone other than Brown is in a position to explain his answer.

But people other than Brown are certainly in a position to judge his answer. That judgement will be made by reference to the specific question asked (have there been other affairs?) and the answer given (not that I’m aware).

Now, if new information comes to light that shows the answer given was a lie (bearing in mind that Brown certainly knew when he gave the answer whether he’d had other affairs), then he’ll be judged accordingly.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 11:20pm
SPC

Nostradamus, anyone contending that not that I am aware is his answer to the question would have to explain how it could be an answer to the question – do (and how can they) have affairs they are not aware of? As this is a logical nonsense, it was not his answer to the question – he was evading the question and explaining on what basis.

What he was not aware of was public reports of any other affair (apart from that with BC) during his SECOND marriage – thus nothing else to confirm nor deny than the BC affair.

The only logical interpretation is that he would not comment about whether there had been other affairs until there were public media reports of/about them.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 25, 2013 11:39pm
Nostradamus

SPC:

I think the difference of opinion between us arises, in part, because you’re conflating the question asked and the answer given.

The question asked was “Have there been other affairs?”

The question wasn’t “Have there been other affairs involving you that you aren’t aware of?”. Clearly, as Brown would have been a party to any such affairs and would have been aware of them, such a question would be a logical nonsense. I’m not sure why you’re introducing a logical nonsense into this discussion.

And the question wasn’t “Have there been any other affairs involving you that you are aware of, but the public aren’t, because they haven’t been reported in the media?”. What I think you’re saying is that Brown took the question actually asked, conveniently “reconstructed” it as this question (which wasn’t the question asked), then proceeded to answer the “reconstructed” question (which, again, wasn’t the question asked).

Call that a politician’s answer if you like, but I think a representative member of the public would look at the question actually asked (have there been other affairs) and the answer given (not that I’m aware) in a less sophisticated way than you’re suggesting. Brown was asked if there were other affairs. That’s a simple question to which a simple yes-no answer could be given. I interpret “Not that I’m aware” as meaning “No”. That’s my view. I think a representative member of the public would interpret that answer in the same way, but others can speak for themselves.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 12:04am
Left Right and Centre

Dennis – I’d give you 2/ 10 for that one. Fucking awful rhythm, timing and flow. The words stop and start on the wrong beats. Three lines out of five are just dogs.

If you want an example of better everything – ‘Hickory, dickory dock’. Everything ‘fits’ well.

Unless that’s something you do to ‘add’ to the tone of your limericks – to make them ‘not work’ which in itself is part of poking the borax.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 12:55am
SPC

Nostradamaus, not so much conflating them, but appreciating that he did not actually answer the question.

Until you can find a way to explain how someone can have an affair that they are not aware of, then “not that I am aware of” cannot possibly be his answer to the question.

A politician that does not want to answer a question – only explains as much as they want to. His was to place the matter into the context of what the public does know, rather than what it does not. And so he mentions what is known – an affair during his first marriage and the affair with BC during the second. In referring to a lack of knowledge of any public reporting of any other affair, he is unable to confirm or deny any such report.

Explicitly he is refusing to make his private life (anything still private) a matter of public record.
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 12:59am
Pete George

On the publicly known information Brown has not been explicit about anything. He certainly doesn’t appear to have been explicit about “refusing to make his private life (anything still private) a matter of public record”, as reported he was evasive.

SPC, you may know more about all of this than the public knows. Do you?

Brown hasn’t come close to full disclosure about anything, not even the Chuang affair. All he has done is acknowledge “a mistake” and not deny the rest.

Whale Oil is not the only one to claim that further disclosures will damage Brown, a number of journalists have said that if details about more “mistakes” come out then Brown is discredited to the extent that remaining mayor would be untenable.

I don’t think that most people would be happy with what you seem to be suggesting, that a politician only has to be honest about things that are public knowledge.

Honesty and transparency don’t wash if it’s based on “if I get caught I’ll admit it”.

Explicitly he is refusing to make his private life (anything still private) a matter of public record.

Again, he hasn’t been explicit and he hasn’t refused, he has avoided answering. And how do you know there is nothing of public interest that he is refusing to disclose?

His affair with Chuang wasn’t just private, it involved his public life. As mayor he gave her a reference. As mayor he used her as an interpreter and escort. He used his mayoral phone and office, and council (public) places, to have sex with her. He used council staff and facilities to aid his hotel liaisons. He has used publicly paid PR staff to try to manage the ensuing publicity.

If he had any other affairs you would have to have an intimate knowledge to be able to claim they were totally private.

Talking about full disclosure SPC, do you have any connection with Brown’s public affairs?
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 6:50am
Manolo

The bitch is warming up: http://swampland.time.com/2013/10/24/6-presidential-campaign-themes-hillary-clinton-is-test-driving/
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 7:15am
Azeraph

Well, he is a free person. He can go where ever he wants to.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11146539
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 7:23am
Pete George

The Herald has an interview with Brown’s spin doctor – Michele Hewitson interview: David Lewis. Unusual. Interesting timing.

He says he hadn’t heard so much as a rumour about the mayor’s affair before the story was about to break, in the last week of the campaign. Shouldn’t he have?

“Only when it came out. If it was going to come out …”

Similar to SPC’s line.

He never tells lies. “Aah. You’ll get caught out if you tell lies. So you don’t tell lies in this business.” Half-truths? “Sometimes you’ll answer questions in a way which might deflect the question.” Has he done that today? “No. Not today.”

Brown deflected in the Campbell interview, he deflected in the Herald interview. He didn’t disclose.

I’d have thought that there must be a frisson of excitement, being in the thick of a major scandal. After all, managing scandals is what he does.

“Yeah, but with this one it was less frisson and it was just, ‘Oh, shit’. I could do without the frisson of the current, um, troubles.”

You did have to ask if there were going to be any further, um, troubles. So, are there any more girls? “No. Not that I’m aware of.” Has he asked? “Yes, I have.” And he said no? “Yes.” And he believes him? “Yes.” Well, he has to, doesn’t he? “Yeah.”

I asked the same question again, a different way (I don’t know why I bothered; he knows all the tricks). Was he absolutely certain there were no further scandals in Len’s closet? “I certainly hope so … I’m pretty certain … Yes. I am certain. I guess.” That little qualifier at the end … “But Len’s told me there’s nothing more. That everything is out there, so …”

A plausible denial?
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 7:29am
nasska

….”Well, he is a free person. He can go where ever he wants to.”…..

I doubt that he will be missed….NZ is a little too small to comfortably accommodate Mr Wewege, his ego & ambitions as well as the rest of us.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 7:37am
SPC

Pete,

1. no, I have no more knowledge of this than that which is public knowledge
2. no, I have no connection to those who work for the Auckland Mayor, nor have I met them or him.

I do know some stuff.

1. it is not usual for politicians here to resign over having an affair. Usually it does not even warrant public media attention, the issue taken is with hypocrisy, and even then political colleagues and the voters decide their fate.
2. providing a reference to those one knows is normal practice (and here it was before the sexual relationship/affair began), it is only questionable when an employer contacting the referee is of an organisation funded by the referee and even then only if undue influence is applied at this point.

3. the full disclosure applies only to the matter of BC and otherwise in relation to being prepared to either confirm or deny any affair (and related details) that has been made public by others.
4. he did not answer the question as to any affairs that have not been made public, but inferred that he would only confirm or deny such if and when they became public.

In my opinion, the matter of some blogster offering his media as a publicity resource for any other women who may have had an affair with the Mayor in the past, is simply a device to pressure the Mayor to resign to save his marriage (on the basis that if he has not admitted this other past affair to his wife yet it could impact on his relationship with her).

However in terms of his public life, the same circumstances apply to any other affair as to this one, appropriate behaviour as Mayor. Whether he had one affair or two affairs is not the issue.
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 5:55pm
bhudson

@SPC,

#2 – true. But Len claims he barely knew her. And that he has a habit of writing very positive references. For people he barely know, it seems. All very odd. Of course, the main issue to be investigated is whether or not his desire to be on the other side of her clothing at the time might have had, or be perceived to have had, a bearing on the provision and content of the reference.

#3 & #4 – complete and utter bovine scatology. Of course Len has left himself wriggle room in his mind, but he is not in control of how his answers are interpreted. Let’s see where he gets to if he tries to plead with the public that he had been completely honest re:disclosure, if one or more affairs come to light.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 6:17pm
SPC

I see provision and content of the written reference as irrelevant, the more important question is what role the referee later played when the prospective employer called – given their workplace relationship.

Given he has only denied having other affairs to Evans (in what specific way that was done I do not know), he has not misled the public as to there being other affairs (if there were any). If there were other affairs then this would impact on his workplace relationship with Evans (as well as his marriage).
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 6:30pm
nasska

bhudson

#2 At the time of writing the reference Lying Len probably hadn’t begun the “affair”. The timing of the initial dipping of the mayoral wick & Ms Chuang’s employment at the Art Gallery is a little too tight to suggest that access to the honeypot didn’t depend on her employment status.

If Two Minute Man was actively chasing her at the time, effectively he sold the reference for sex…..it is not a good look.
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 6:31pm
SPC

nasska, as the Mayor has given references to many others whom he has not aspired to be in a sexual relationship with, it is invalid to draw the connection you made.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 6:44pm
Nostradamus

SPC:

You wrote:

SPC (3,535) Says:
October 25th, 2013 at 9:53 pm

PG, I tend to agree with Nostradamus, however unless Brown was responding to the question of are there any other affairs to disclose, the term full disclosure could quite plausibly be only in relation to the matter them before the media.
…

I looked into the matter and established that Brown was responding to the question of are there other affairs to disclose. That was the specific question asked. You’re suggesting that he gave a politician’s answer by avoiding the specific question.

As I say, if other affairs come to light, I really don’t think the public will at all interested in semantic arguments about what Brown says his “full disclosure” related to.

And what do you make of what David Lewis told Michelle Hewitson:

You did have to ask if there were going to be any further, um, troubles. So, are there any more girls? “No. Not that I’m aware of.” Has he asked? “Yes, I have.” And he said no? “Yes.” And he believes him? “Yes.” Well, he has to, doesn’t he? “Yeah.”

So Lewis asked Brown the specific question, and Brown said no.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 6:48pm
nasska

SPC

Wrong….the other references are incidental. We have no way of knowing whether he received “considerations” for them or if they were legitimate.

In the case of Ms Chuang there was a cause & an effect.
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 6:54pm
SPC

Nostradamus,

As you noted yesterday Brown’s full disclosure is only in relation to the BC matter

Nostradamus (2,521) Says:
October 25th, 2013 at 9:33 pm
Pete:

I’m not sure that’s how Brown would see it.

In political-speak. “I have made full disclosure” could – with the convenience of retrospectivity – mean no more and no less than “I have made full disclosure about the affair with Bevan Chuang”. Judging by Brown’s approach to date, if another affair were to come to light, I think he’d just shift the goal-posts.
*************************************************

As to Brown’s avoidance of a direct answer to a media question on other affairs – he simply mentioned the one during his first marriage and the BC one as the ones known to the public – confirming both, and saying he would only confirm or deny any other affair if such a report of such became a matter of public record.

As to what he said to Evans, reportedly that were no other affairs.

As I noted earlier, “given he has only denied having other affairs to Evans (in what specific way that was done I do not know), he has not misled the public as to there being other affairs (if there were any). If there were other affairs then this would impact on his workplace relationship with Evans (as well as his marriage).”

The simplest interpretation is that there were no other affairs and thus the private assurance to Evans, and the refusal to state this on the public record is based on a position that such questions should not be asked of elected officials by the public media, but one cannot know that for sure.
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 7:07pm
SPC

nasska, the consideration at question is that he supplied the reference before the sexual favour was granted, not in return for the sexual favour.
0 3
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 7:13pm
nasska

SPC

So he paid in advance.
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 7:14pm
bhudson

Given he has only denied having other affairs to Evans

@SPC,

Tut, tut. As you well know from your semantic tap dancing with Nostradamus last night, Lenny boy has also told Orsman that he has had no other affairs recently. Well none that he can recall anyway. Perhaps his long term memory only kicks in after 2 minutes.
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 7:24pm
SPC

nasska, is a man buying a woman dinner and who gets sex with her a month later also paying for it? The same consideration also occurs within marriage when his pay check buys the groceries.

But once a woman has a job she is not dependent on his money. So a reference to a job is not the best consideration available to a man looking for sex.
0 3
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 7:24pm
bhudson

nasska, the consideration at question is that he supplied the reference before the sexual favour was granted, not in return for the sexual favour.

@SPc,

‘In anticipation of’ would be equally bad and sufficient to tar him with conflict of interest
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 7:25pm
SPC

bhudson, Brown did not say any such thing to Orsman.
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 7:28pm
SPC

bhudson, “conflict of interest” is a workplace term and is in relation to what Brown said to the person hiring at the Art Gallery, not in providing the reference to Chaung.
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 7:31pm
bhudson

@SPC,

Oh yes he did. “Not that I’m aware [in recent times.]”

The square brackets being Orsman’s edit.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11143794
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 7:31pm
SPC

bhudson, as it is not possible to have an affair that you are “not aware of” what you quote is not his answer to the question.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 7:34pm
bhudson

@SPC,

Conflict of interest is not a workplace term, as you try to confine it to.

If there is a correlation to Brown providing a person he was trying to have sexual relations with a very positive [his admission] reference for a job, then he is exposed to a claim of conflict of interest.

This inquiry could sink him. (If it weren’t going to be a complete whitewash, that is.]
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 7:36pm
bhudson

bhudson, as it is not possible to have an affair that you are “not aware of” what you quote is not his answer to the question

Yes it is, SPC. It just happens that he deliberately obfuscated in his answer. That does not alter the fact that that was his answer to the question.

Which may well have been a lie. Poor chap.
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 7:39pm
SPC

Is there any precedent in New Zealand for someone supplying a reference to someone they later had sex with to be determined as a conflict of interest (in any matter of employment)?

What about an employer hiring someone because they wanted to later have sex with them or this seemed to be the case because they later had sex with them. Any case of this being deemed a conflict of interest?
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 7:40pm
SPC

bhudson, can you name anyone who has had an affair that they were not aware of?
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 7:41pm
bhudson

@SPC,

No. Which is why it is so obvious that Len obfuscated in his answer to the question. He just did so very poorly indeed.

Of course he does have the defence of claiming not to remember having the affairs [if more now come to light.]

That fact that his answer makes no sense doesn’t mean he didn’t answer the question SPC. It means he answered it very poorly.

And rumours seem to suggest it will come back to haunt him.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 7:45pm
SPC

bhudson, selecting certain words and taking them out of context is a matter of spin that only the partisan would resort to. This is one reason why some of you in your right wing echo chamber are unable to realise why their is no resonance between your imaginings and the public perception.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 7:46pm
bhudson

selecting certain words and taking them out of context is a matter of spin that only the partisan would resort to.

SPC,

I quoted directly from Orsman’s article with no modification. The only spin there is Orsman’s.

I do agree that he is partisan. But definitely not in favour of the Right.
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 7:47pm
SPC

bhudson, rumours are nothing. The rumour is simply a device to either force him to resign to save his marriage (if there is something) or otherwise to place pressure on him at Council.
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 7:50pm
SPC

But you separated not that I am aware of from the rest of his response to the question denying the words their context.
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 7:52pm
bhudson

@SPC,

We they had best be just that – the man has exposed himself by claiming no other affairs (that he can recall – perhaps the others, such as there may be, were forgettable affairs.)
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 7:53pm
bhudson

@SPC,

The other words do not alter the context of that final sentence. I know you desperately want them to, but they simply do not. The first two sentences refer to his affair with Shan. The third claims there has been no other (that he can recall.)

Orsman was somewhat obliged to add his edit as Brown had acknowledged his earlier affair with Shan when married to his first wife. If Orsman had left it unedited then it would appear that Brown was also denying that earlier affair two sentences after having admitted it.
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 7:58pm
SPC

He did not claim to Orsman that there were no other affairs, just no awareness of any media reports of any affairs apart from one during his first marriage and the one to BC during his second.

That there were no other affairs was something he apparently said to Lewis.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 8:04pm
bhudson

SPC,

Your interpretation is flat out wrong. The note about being reported referred solely to his affair with Shan. He had to note that as it had been reported in previous days – possibly intended to paint him as a philanderer, but in public nonetheless. That sentence in no way at all qualifies the following and final sentence “Not that I’m aware [in recent times.]”
3 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 8:09pm
SPC

bhudson, you don’t get to decide what interpretation is right or wrong. For yours to be right one would have to presume that someone could have affairs they were not aware of … LOL. That is the sort of tautology that one would expect from a member of a cult interpreting the bible in their own way separate from the more rational world.
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 8:15pm
bhudson

That is the sort of tautology that one would expect from a member of a cult interpreting the bible in their own way separate from the more rational world.

Or someone obfuscating to try to cover up other affair(s). Len’s backed himself into a corner now. Which only media silence can protect him from.

Let’s face it, he’s a second rate liar as well
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 8:19pm
SPC

My interpretation of his answer is consistent with past deference to public figures that they do not usually get asked such questions about their personal life, or if they do they simply defend their right to keep such matters private and so only comment about matters already of public record.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 8:21pm
bhudson

@SPC,

You cannot interpret what Len said in the basis of what someone else said sometime in the past.

Len had the option of refusing to answer. He chose to. And made a hash of it,
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 8:32pm
bhudson

@SPC,

You might want to check this comment out from AG on another thread just a few mins ago:

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/10/webster_apologises_to_mitchell.html/comment-page-1#comment-1223981

Very unequivocal.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 8:40pm
SPC

You lot really are quite desperate, as to the attempt to craft the issue in such a way whereby Brown is placed under pressure to resign. The self deception required of each, and the related herd mentality that it results in, demonstrates the influence agenda and partisanship has on rational thinking.

However the result of such zero sum politicisation of the private lives of elected figures is not without some cost to the process. The negative approach is involved is more common in foreign political environments than our own. And keeping such matters separate is one reason why we have less corruption/vulnerability to blackmail of our public figures.

The terms undue influence and conflict of interest are wide in scope and most of those in office for a term or two are vulnerable to scrutiny – one reason the government is one party that would rather this matter had not become public. The meme is one the opposition tries hard to create and raising the standard to a level of not using ones office to help ones “mates” is one that no government can stand. John Key knows it and David Cunliffe probably cannot believe his luck that others on the right want to raise the bar, just to get Brown.
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
October 26, 2013 8:41pm

More comments:

‹
1
2

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« A good trading month

Good news for the West Coast »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Highlights

The Kiwis are fleeing
Inflation by term
Houston we have a problem
Our immunisation disaster

Never miss a post

Email Address

Links

How to slow down the Fast Track Bill
The Standard
Berkeley Prosecutors Cut Probation Deal for Scientist Who Tried to Kill Colleague
Utopia
GUEST BLOG: Ian Powell – New hospital building trumps ‘Yes Minister’ hospital without patients
The Daily Blog
Pot, kettle, black
Hompaddock
Climate Change: Turning the tide
No Right Turn
A question for you all on those sackings
Not PC
Despair - construction consenting edition
Offsetting Behaviour
A Water Tank Is Not A Fire Risk
No Minister
Jones finds $410,000 to help the government muscle in on a spat project
Point of Order
Again, hate crimes are not necessarily terrorism.
Kiwipolitico
RACIST ADVERTISING
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
Is the state coming for churches?
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
Super Rugby Predictions for Week 9
Stats Chat
Coalition Promises
NZCPR
Tougher than that
Croaking Cassandra
ABs stripped of 2011 title after try disallowed
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d