Public Address | System (Home)

Posted at 10:34AM on 14 May 07. Permalink.

Unsurprisingly DPF et al are delighted with Wisharts latest story. I strongly suspect that in the not unlikely event that National are in government in eighteen months time people like David will quickly rue cheerleading Wishart and his particular brand of seat-sniffing journalism. I predict that it won't be long before their fearless crusader for truth has turned his guns on prominent liberal members of the National Party and we'll see Katherine Rich, Lockwood Smith and Chris Finlayson on the front cover of Investigate being charged with white-slavery, cannibalism, soy-milk smuggling, colluding with Al Qaeda or whatever else Wishart dreams up. Hell of a double-edged sword they have there.

After all, can anyone over the age of twelve categorically state that they've never been to a party at which objectionable material MIGHT have been present?

Entering litigation is not a pleasant thing, and it may simply be the case that Wishart is not worth suing.

I think it's more the case that none of the public figures Wishart targets have any desire to find themselves in a courtroom, under oath while Wisharts lawyers ask questions about their private life while a room full of journalists look on.

Posted at 10:52AM on 14 May 07. Permalink.

After all, can anyone over the age of twelve categorically state that they've never been to a party at which objectionable material MIGHT have been present?

Objectionable in the legal sense. I think so. Oh wait, a copy of 2005's Critic 23 may have been present at one. Damn.

The differences with Broad of course are that:

1. It was his house and he DID know - not might have known
2. He's a cop, and I prefer than cops don't ignore the law

Posted at 10:56AM on 14 May 07. Permalink.

What I find interesting is that claims made by Wishart and his informants are treated as gospel truth, and denials or explanations by their targets are derided as lies or spin. You would hope never to face a jury staffed by Farrar's commenters.

Posted at 11:10AM on 14 May 07. Permalink.

"mentally-challenged commenters on other blogs who resort to ad hominem attacks"

Irony much?

Posted at 11:11AM on 14 May 07. Permalink.

The differences with Broad of course are that:

1. It was his house and he DID know - not might have known
2. He's a cop, and I prefer than cops don't ignore the law.

The other way of looking at it is that there were far more senior policemen than him there, who may actually have seen the video. I think it would have been more incumbent on them to take action than a 23 year-old constable.

Posted at 11:14AM on 14 May 07. Permalink.

A large part of the later allegations appear to be based on the testomy of a twice convicted killer. The killer claims to have been threatened with having a friend raped/killed by a policeman to confess the first time and then railroaded by police to cover up a police sanctioned murder the second time.

Well that is interesting. I've heard from a number of different sources (hearsay alert) that the reason the mainstream media refused to touch Wisharts BDSM story about David Benson-Pope is because reporters at other South Island media outlets had been previously approached by a mentally ill person with serious criminal convictions trying to sell a very similar story. Wishart has never named the identity of his source for his allegations.

This is just Wellington gossip - I haven't heard it from any horses mouths, so take it with a grain of salt (and some lime and tequila) - but its interesting in light of the above comment.

Posted at 11:18AM on 14 May 07. Permalink.

After all, can anyone over the age of twelve categorically state that they've never been to a party at which objectionable material MIGHT have been present?

Darryl, of course I bloody can't. Then again, I do own around two dozen restricted DVDs (though no porn, sorry) as part of my collection which I don't show (illegally) to minors, or would regard as appropriate entertainment at any kind of fundraiser in my home.

I also recently loaned from a friend a copy of Alan Moore and Melinda Grebbie's sexually explicit graphic novel Lost Girls, which I didn't leave lying around on the coffee table for rather obvious reasons.

And just an FYI, Darryl, Mr. Wishart was around long before the election of the Fifth Labour Government. Trying to paint this man as some kind of National Party sock puppet is (at best) a wee bit disingenuous.

Posted at 11:19AM on 14 May 07. Permalink.

Wishart=Wishard=nutter
A belated well done on the Netscape awards Russell

And was I the only one amused by Chris Trotter use of your material in his paper column
You normally know where you stand with Chris although he tarnished his reputation with me with his stand that the lefts dodgyl money grab was made all right because "we are morally in the right"

Posted at 11:20AM on 14 May 07. Permalink.

I struggle with the way Wishart works and writes. It's like he aims at readers who want to hear stuff like this so they can have a quick rage at the government, slam the magazine on the coffee table, and then go back to watching the rugby. I know a number of people who try contact Wishart on his views, but get nothing back. But I'm not sure he deliberately lies; it's that he probably gets so wrapped up in some sort tunnel vision he borders being mendacious.

Posted at 11:22AM on 14 May 07. Permalink.

And just an FYI, Darryl, Mr. Wishart was around long before the election of the Fifth Labour Government. Trying to paint this man as some kind of National Party sock puppet is (at best) a wee bit disingenuous.

Feel free to read what I actually wrote, and if you have anything interesting to say about my actual post (as opposed to your wild misreading of it) I'll be happy to reply.

RB's scientology links give me an excuse to link to the online version of Bare Faced Messiah, the (very) unofficial biography of L Ron Hubbard. It's pretty wild.

Posted at 11:28AM on 14 May 07. Permalink.

And just an FYI, Darryl, Mr. Wishart was around long before the election of the Fifth Labour Government. Trying to paint this man as some kind of National Party sock puppet is (at best) a wee bit disingenuous.

Aw, c'mon Craig. You know very well that Wishart has pursued an obsessive ideologically-driven campaign against the current government. Remember the secret lesbian cabal led by Head Lesbian Helen Clark? For goodness sake, his cover illustration for this issue is a full-page portrait of Michael Cullen.

Danyl was pointing out that the Kiwiblog commenters lapping up the current controversy might not be so happy if and when Wishart starts targeting liberal National MPs.

Posted at 11:30AM on 14 May 07. Permalink.

I know a number of people who try contact Wishart on his views, but get nothing back. But I'm not sure he deliberately lies; it's that he probably gets so wrapped up in some sort tunnel vision he borders being mendacious.

And I know one person who has conclusively demonstrated to Wishart that major elements of a story concerning them have been flat-out wrong. Not a flicker.

Posted at 11:31AM on 14 May 07. Permalink.

The other way of looking at it is that there were far more senior policemen than him there, who may actually have seen the video. I think it would have been more incumbent on them to take action than a 23 year-old constable.

Hum... I take your point, as far as it goes, but I don't recall Commissioner Broad saying in recent weeks that playing pass the parcel up the chain of command is an appropriate response to matter like this. Without access to a transcript of his interview on Morning Report today, I think he said he'd expect a very different response from any constable in the same situation today.

I'll also throw something else into the pot: Where the hell would the Wood Commission into Police Corruption in New South Wales have gotten if it was dependent on the co-operation of those at the top of the greasy pole "taking action"?

Posted at 11:36AM on 14 May 07. Permalink.

Gotta admit, there are some uncomfortable grey areas to the popular line of reasoning that someones competence today can and should be held accountable by their actions - or inactions - of the past.

Posted at 11:39AM on 14 May 07. Permalink.

You know very well that Wishart has pursued an obsessive ideologically-driven campaign against the current government.

Yes, just and you and Darryl know very well the man has pursued an obsessive, ideologically-driven campaign against the two previous ones (Paradise Conspiracy anyone?), and I'm sure he'll do exactly the same against the next.

I used to have to drink an awful lot to reach Investigate-like levels of paranoia (but would pass out fairly quickly, so little harm done), but I just don't see any evidence that Wishart's m.o. has noticeably changed over the last two decades or so. Just the targets.

Of course, it would help enormously if the supposedly 'respectable' MSM weren't quite so willing to spread the muck without doing the basic fact-checking Mr. Wishart doesn't bother with.

Posted at 11:49AM on 14 May 07. Permalink.

Not that this should need saying, but whatever my opinion of Messers Cullen and Benson-Pope (low to non-existent), I would be quite happy to kick in some dosh towards their legal costs if they sue Investigate -- and every other media outlet that's repeated the claims made against them - for libel.

Posted at 11:58AM on 14 May 07. Permalink.

The other way of looking at it is that there were far more senior policemen than him there, who may actually have seen the video. I think it would have been more incumbent on them to take action than a 23 year-old constable.

Perhaps, those same people aren't the now Police Commissioner who thinks criminal offending of this nature is best dealt with through "internal action", however.

And arguments of this nature didn't seem to work in the eyes of most over the Abu Gahraib guards who didn't blow the whistle:

I'm only a private, my sergeant knew what was going on so I said nothing. That's okay isn't it?

Posted at 12:02PM on 14 May 07. Permalink.

David Farrar says:

If the allegations can not be substantiated, those named should sue for defamation to clear their names. These are very serious allegations.

WTF! Why on earth should they / would they. The guy is clearly very nasty. I have no doubt he would revel in court. Just another forum for self publicity and his deluded ramblings. This is the stuff of Brethren hiring detectives to follow government ministers. No wonder Clark used the cancerous and corrosive phrase to describe this kind of politics. I think she was being very restrained. I find it incredibly odd that Key and English chose to give their first in-depth interview to Wishart. Was this some kind of payback?

Craig, as has been pointed out to you before, Danyl is spelt

December Alpha November Yoyo Lima - as a radio personality of growing repute I would expect you to be erring on the side of accuracy these days.

Posted at 12:05PM on 14 May 07. Permalink.

Ian Wishart is the Lord of the disingenuous and it amazes me that the MSM repeatedly pick up on his drivel. The guy is obviously quite a sad and restless soul who will not be happy until NZ becomes a Christian theocracy with someone like Bishop Tamaki installed as minister for social development. As this is unlikely to ever happen he'll repeatedly bend the truth to such an extent that he’ll compromise his chances of ever reaching paradise. The rest of us can comfort ourselves in the knowledge that he is destined to rot in hell for eternity. Shame.

Posted at 12:06PM on 14 May 07. Permalink.

as a radio personality of growing repute

Never time to rest on your laurels though Craig, Candy & Jason will be watching your career trajectory with interest.