Hard News: Ups and Downs
128 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
The blame of course lies with those trying to get some justice for the complainant - in this case Phil Goff.
Hilary: If someone comes to be complaining that she's (at best) being textually harassed, you'll pardon me if Goff's example is one I won't be following. I've no desire to get on this merry go round again, but when it comes to taking sexual harassment seriously both Key and Goff score an epic fail.
-
The term "yeah, no", or sometimes "No, yeah", can be heard all the time and I find it just a little irritating. Like those things that you have never noticed before but accepted on a sub-conscious level. Even John Campbell does it, all the time and he's supposed to be one of the better spoken amongst us.
The "yeah but no but" is Australian as far as I can tell, using the word "but" as a replacement for "though" which can lead to some interesting misunderstandings, like;
"My girlfriend's a lousy root, she gives good head but"
Crude, I know but we are talking Australians. ;-) -
The first rule in responding to anyone who is brave enough to disclose abuse of any kind is to take it seriously. Not belittle, not demand proof, not mock them or laugh at them, not tell them they should just accept it. Not assume you are more of an expert on the situation than they are (as Craig does above).
We live in a violent abusive society because people do not feel safe enough to ask for help. Worth and Key have shown exactly why it is not safe.
-
The first rule in responding to anyone who is brave enough to disclose abuse of any kind is to take it seriously.
Oh Hilary, that's so naive. The First Law of Ranapia clearly states that all parties must be blamed equally for any transgression. The abuse is waaaaay down the list of priorities here.
-
Oh Hilary, that's so naive. The First Law of Ranapia clearly states that all parties must be blamed equally for any transgression. The abuse is waaaaay down the list of priorities here.
And that's not so much cheap as only fit to be left on the kerb for the next inorganic collection, Danielle.
The first rule in responding to anyone who is brave enough to disclose abuse of any kind is to take it seriously. Not belittle, not demand proof, not mock them or laugh at them, not tell them they should just accept it. Not assume you are more of an expert on the situation than they are (as Craig does above).
Hilary: I'm making my judgements on Goff and Key based on the statements they've been quite happy to make to the media. Meanwhile, since I've not called the complainant a liar -- or regarded her husband's dodgy dealings as relevant enough to comment on -- I'm not sure what you're going on about.
Meanwhile, I do hope anyone accused of any offence -- regardless of gender -- is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Especially when you're inaccurate and offensively insinuating that I presume women who complain of sexual harassment are lying toe rags.
-
complaining that she's (at best) being textually harassed
Craig - that is what I am referring to. You assume you know the whole story and at the same time judging it to be trivial.
-
Craig - that is what I am referring to. You assume you know the whole story and at the same time judging it to be trivial.
Should I just leave the room so you can conduct both sides of this dialogue? There's a lot of words being put in my mouth, and the nasty taste is starting to make me gag.
-
I suppose this is the right point to note that the "honeytrap" theory being propagated by the usual suspects is absurd.
Goff's handling of things can certainly be faulted, but the idea that it was all a jack-up is crazy. If you were to build a honeytrap for the poor minister (who clearly had no control over his own behaviour), you wouldn't:
1. Pick a one-time Labour candidate as your femme fatale.
2. Forget to record the phone calls.
3. Delete the most offensive and sensational text messages.
4. Not mention it until John Key has already mentioned the complaint to reporters.
The really irritating thing is the conflation of the text-message complaint with the case of the Korean woman -- which, for goodness sake, involves an allegation of sexual assault.
Jim Mora on RNZ yesterday seemed only dimly aware of the difference between the cases, and pretty much sat there while Richard Griffin praised his friend Worth and depicted the Korean woman as some kind of needy nutcase. It was horrible.
-
Thank you Russell.
-
Perhaps a BSA complaint against RNZ for lack of balance might be warranted? See news of similar Breakfast TV ruling, as mentioned by Steve.
Complainant Roger Brooking said: "No attempt was made to present the other side of the argument on sentencing and law and order issues."
The interview enabled Mr McVicar to "repeatedly air his right wing populist views about law and order, generally criticise judges for being too lenient on criminals and expound his belief this fails to send a message of deterrence to other criminals in the community".
Mr Brooking said a lawyer or a criminologist should also have been interviewed and it was inappropriate for the broadcaster to present "the reactionary views of an unqualified right wing individual as if he was the oracle of sentencing law".
He also said the presenters expressed sympathy for Mr McVicar's views.
-
I suppose this is the right point to note that the "honeytrap" theory being propagated by the usual suspects is absurd.
Well, I guess stating the bleeding obvious has its place. :) Could this be the right point to note that I've not been trying to sell that bill of goods here or anywhere else?
Perhaps a BSA complaint against RNZ for lack of balance might be warranted?
Perhaps, but someone definitely needs to sit Jim Moira down and give up a tune up on prudent and non-prejudicial ways to discuss ongoing police investigations; as well as the potental defamation involved in calling anyone (as Russell no elegantly puts it) "a needy nutcase". Though you could be a tad bitchy and say that where professional PR flacks like Griffin are concerned, he's probably worked for a few over the years.
-
Could this be the right point to note that I've not been trying to sell that bill of goods here or anywhere else?
Granted.
-
Have you googled it? Cos the googles suggest its in widespread use in the English-speaking world.
Now I have googled it. Damnit, the word is so derivative, it's even appeared in Harry Potter. Ah well, we'll always have pavlova and kiwifruit.
-
And Russell Crowe. :)
-
Jim Mora was ambushed this afternoon by a listener he rang for a lightweight chat. The man instead wanted to complain about the Government's Budget slashing of the Enviro Schools programme.
Unfortunately for Jim, he didn't have any of his regular right wing panellists on hand for a suitable blame it on Phil Goff reply.
-
Yes, I heard that too. Good stuff! I had pretty much given up on NatRadio in the pm but I was home, working my way through a pile of essay marking.
My beef with The Panel is not so much with the right wing bozos they invite in, but because they favour 'personalities' who already have ample opportunities to spout off in the media.
-
or regarded her husband's dodgy dealings as relevant enough to comment on
Still, fire for affect eh Craig? :)
What I found insulting in that Kirk Herald article mentioned above was the last line. "I gave her huge support or as much as I could" Ouch. -
Still, fire for affect eh Craig? :)
What?
-
or regarded her husband's dodgy dealings as relevant enough to comment on
You still had to mention her husband and your comment in itself was fire. Hey I guess everbody else knew to ignore it, so my stupid.
-
You still had to mention her husband and your comment in itself was fire. Hey I guess everbody else knew to ignore it, so my stupid.
Gee, Sophie, I'm a little more pissed off about the untrue insinuation I'd called the woman a liar.
-
To be fair, Craig, you have more than once announced that you're not going to venture on the (allegedly) distasteful circumstances of, say, Trevor Mallard's marraige breakup.
It might not be your intention, but you can't blame people for thinking that you're mentioning something by declaring that you're not going to mention it.
-
Craig, no one called you a liar. You were called out, rightly so, for this little jab:
complaining that she's (at best) being textually harassed
Frankly, I mostly avoid your comments these days, because the rhetorical wrappings completely obscure whatever sense might be lurking in them. If you find you're being misconstrued a lot, maybe you should give up the rhetorical flourishes and move to a plainer style.
-
Incidentally, drawing attention to something by claiming you're going to ignore it is called paralipsis.
-
maybe you should give up the rhetorical flourishes and move to a plainer style.
Thanks, Stephen. Here's some very plain English: Maybe some people should stop making shit up and attaching my name to it -- especially if you're going to suggest that I tolerate or enable abusive behaviour towards women. Have a nice evening
-
Re:
she's (at best) being textually harassed
In full context of reply-to-post, edited for clarity:
If someone comes to [m]e complaining that she's (at best) being textually harassed [which is already bad enough, but complaint may yet be of even worse behaviour], you'll pardon me if Goff's example is one I won't be following [because he also failed to handle the complaint with the gravity it deserved]
So... wrong about it being a jab, and right about Craig's rhetorical flourishes obscuring his actual meaning. The trash-heap has spoken. As you were.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.