Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Moving right along?

288 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 5 6 7 8 9 12 Newer→ Last

  • Seamus Harris, in reply to Morgan Nichol,

    Look if Len was standing up at mayoral functions and wanking off I think we'd both agree he was unfit for the job. Nothing wrong having a wank, but lines need to be drawn.

    So where does one draw the line? Everyone's opinion will differ, but to me, for the mayor to be wanking in the mayoral offices, while on the phone to someone who works on council-related issues, and as part of a mayoral campaign to pester that person into sex. . . well, it just seems a bit unacceptable.

    This has nothing to do with church-goer style morality, it's just basic workplace standards.

    Auckland • Since May 2008 • 43 posts Report Reply

  • Seamus Harris, in reply to BenWilson,

    Not a crime, but in most workplaces this would be a sackable offense.

    Auckland • Since May 2008 • 43 posts Report Reply

  • Morgan Nichol, in reply to Seamus Harris,

    for the mayor to be wanking in the mayoral offices

    It is bloody weird, I'll give you that at the very least.

    On the bright side he may have then met John Key with a shake of the hand.

    Auckland CBD • Since Nov 2006 • 313 posts Report Reply

  • Geoff Lealand, in reply to Seamus Harris,

    You just seem to be excessively judgemental,

    Screen & Media Studies, U… • Since Oct 2007 • 2537 posts Report Reply

  • Geoff Lealand,

    .... and Chuang was not an employee in any conventional sense of the word, so workplace considerations are irrelevant.

    Screen & Media Studies, U… • Since Oct 2007 • 2537 posts Report Reply

  • Zach Levi,

    Nor is the mayor. He's a representative, not an employee. The difference is important - if representatives could be sacked like employees, it would deny the right of the people to elect who they choose.

    Anyway, some consider wanking in the office to be reasonable:

    Nelson • Since Oct 2013 • 1 posts Report Reply

  • Andrew Geddis, in reply to Seamus Harris,

    Not a crime, but in most workplaces this would be a sackable offense.

    Probably true. But the mayor is not an employee, and isn't subject to employment law standards. So it is a false equivalence.

    Furthermore, there's a number of different standards that apply to different "workplaces". For example, having an affair with a subordinate and not revealing it to your superiors is a sackable offence in the military (as we've just been reminded). It wouldn't be in a University. So before we say "a council employee who did what Brown did would be sacked, so Brown should be, too", we have to establish both that the same set of workplace conduct rules and consequences for breaching those rules ought to apply in both cases.

    With regards that last point, only one group really matter - the people of whom Brown is their representative. And despite your personal outrage at his actions, they just don't seem to care that much. Which doesn't mean your view is wrong, as such ... but it just isn't going to win.

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2007 • 200 posts Report Reply

  • Alex Coleman,

    This seems like a genuinely heartfelt statement, from someone who did some volunteer work on Palino's campaign:

    http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Hamish-Coleman-Ross-Palino-Auckland-must-hear-you/tabid/721/articleID/38516/Default.aspx

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 247 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Seamus Harris,

    as part of a mayoral campaign to pester that person into sex.

    You know, Seamus, I think it would not only be tasteful and fair-minded but legally prudent to stop framing consensual sex (and neither party involved has said it was anything else) as… well, that.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic, in reply to Craig Young,

    Financial irregularities tend to be what usually caused political downfall in many recent New Zealand political scandals.

    And anything involving wilful hypocrisy. Like Graham Capill's kiddy fiddling or David Garrett's passport fraud.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5414 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Seamus Harris,

    Nothing wrong having a wank, but lines need to be drawn

    Aim is crucial

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19667 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Seamus Harris,

    Not a crime, but in most workplaces this would be a sackable offense.

    Others answered this better. What you're saying is true for employees in private companies, although it doesn't automatically get people sacked - if they're good at their jobs they are more likely to get a warning. It is definitely not true for people who own workplaces. And for elected representatives there's definitely no automatic sacking rule for sexual indiscretions.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10629 posts Report Reply

  • Seamus Harris, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    Legally prudent?!?! I'm laughing here. My statement was simply based on Bevan's account of what happened.

    Two people have threatened to sue me for defamation in the past couple of years. Both are pathological liars who resort to these weak threats to shut people up. Mayor Brown is more than welcome to join the queue.

    Auckland • Since May 2008 • 43 posts Report Reply

  • Lilith __,

    Guys, this thread was sordid enough without that!

    And Seamus, say what you like on your own blog, if you defame people here it gets Russell into trouble.

    Dunedin • Since Jul 2010 • 3887 posts Report Reply

  • Rob Stowell, in reply to Andrew Geddis,

    Not a crime, but in most workplaces this would be a sackable offense.

    Probably true.

    If one were caught at it <shudder> sure.
    But if someone you were having a relationship with claimed this had happened (without proof) after the event? Probably not.
    I’m not exactly sure how this works, but I’d have thought an office can be a reasonable place to assume privacy. Especially if the door was locked, for example.

    pull strings to swing special favors for his shag

    I haven’t heard anyone, anywhere, express the view that this is ok- if it in fact happened. Stating it as fact on the basis of a reference coming out of the mayor’s office indicates you’ve got no doubt that’s what happened or are reckless with the truth.
    If you’re right, Brown is toast. If not, you’re publicly defaming him, which is also something we don’t generally think is ok.

    {ETA: Haven’t read the sordid details of Cook’s guide to Chuang’s account of Len’s affair. Don’t want to. They should not have been made public (according, belatedly, to Chuang herself.) Obsessing about them, and repeating them, doesn’t change anything. Erm. Life is great, but it doesn’t have a rewind button.}

    Whakaraupo • Since Nov 2006 • 2089 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Seamus Harris,

    Two people have threatened to sue me for defamation in the past couple of years.

    I expect Craig is suggesting you're risking Russell's site getting held for libel by making claims that you don't have a shred of personal evidence for, that could be damaging to the mayor's reputation.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10629 posts Report Reply

  • Seamus Harris, in reply to BenWilson,

    Well Russell (or whoever is in charge here) is welcome to edit posts as they see fit.

    I'm out of here. Something unexpected has come up, so seems I get to escape the pollution and head somewhere sunny for a few days.

    Auckland • Since May 2008 • 43 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Seamus Harris,

    workplace

    ask the Board

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19667 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Seamus Harris,

    Kohimarama's sunny

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19667 posts Report Reply

  • Lilith __, in reply to Seamus Harris,

    Well Russell (or whoever is in charge here) is welcome to edit posts as they see fit.

    And you are welcome not to be an ass who requires editing!

    Dunedin • Since Jul 2010 • 3887 posts Report Reply

  • Rob Stowell,

    It does seem a tad curious that while most of Bevan Chuang's account seems to be accepted by commenters here, her belief that the mayor was offered and accepted free hotel rooms is not.
    Of course she could be wrong on this.
    And accepting such an offer probably isn't a crime, though there may be a requirement to declare such 'gifts'.
    But if that was the case, it is kind've dodgy. And since it's been denied, if it turns out to have happened, could tip the balance against Len.

    Whakaraupo • Since Nov 2006 • 2089 posts Report Reply

  • martinb, in reply to Seamus Harris,

    Your posts did initially make me think of this:
    Wikipedia editors and Russia's internet army, but then the more you said the less I thought that likely.

    I think most people are balancing out the good work Len's done, who would win if he lost his supporters, the sordid and sleazy nature of the attack which damages the credibility of that attack against the personal betrayal of his family and some of the other behaviour which is weird, but also really really not something we need to know or actually asked to find out about.

    There is an issue about the reference, but I think most people wouldn't categorise it as "swinging ratepayer funded jobs for his shag" the way you did. He seems to have been one referee out of 5 IIRC, and he didn't appoint her or create a job for her.

    So the short answer is that some of us aren't pissed as off with this because it isn't for example pressuring public servants to alter their professional opinions to allow the government to push ahead with a scheme which could "kill the rivers involved", but a lot of sordid and personal details which affects private morality more than public, and doesn't seem to have affected the public purse or important decision making processes.

    Auckland • Since Jul 2010 • 203 posts Report Reply

  • Lilith __, in reply to Rob Stowell,

    it’s been denied

    It's also been denied by the hotels concerned. So that accusation's a dead duck.

    Dunedin • Since Jul 2010 • 3887 posts Report Reply

  • Rob Stowell, in reply to Lilith __,

    it’s been denied

    It’s also been denied by the hotels concerned. So that accusation’s a dead duck.

    Good to know :)

    Whakaraupo • Since Nov 2006 • 2089 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to BenWilson,

    I expect Craig is suggesting you’re risking Russell’s site getting held for libel by making claims that you don’t have a shred of personal evidence for, that could be damaging to the mayor’s reputation.

    Quite – and I think reasonable people would hear some other downright criminal dogs being whistled for behind a cute turn of phrase like Seamus’. I’d note that APN is a well-heeled (and I’m sure heavily insured) corporation that can bear the risk of blowback from over-excited columnists and sketchy comments. Russell is none of the above, so a little more self-auditing on PAS than is the norm on Kiwibog is just nice.

    It does seem a tad curious that while most of Bevan Chuang’s account seems to be accepted by commenters here, her belief that the mayor was offered and accepted free hotel rooms is not.

    Well, I think Chuang’s claims were a lot more heavily qualified than was reported and, yeah… I find it rather hard to believe that the Mayor would deny the claims so strongly when there would be a paper trail that's not that hard to dig up. And, seriously, I find it hard to believe any hotel would (to be blunt about it) comp Brown a fuck pad when the whole point of the exercise is word of mouth PR.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 5 6 7 8 9 12 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.