I see you're still banging the drum about those allegations Paul. Care to actually ask me about the facts before bringing them up on other blogs?Oh yes that's right, you couldnt argue so you decided to use them instead! I missed your anonymous comments on my blog too.
Heine, I'd be happy to hear your version of events. I'll confess to be skeptical however as what I've read stretches credulity.Incidentally, I "banged on" about it 'cause you made a pretty ridiculous comment about Clark and it struck me as odd that you'd question her honesty given that you seemed to be party to a complete fabrication.As I say, if you think I've got it wrong, I'm only too happy to hear what actually happened with one caveat. Can we keep away from personal insults?Incidentally, I don't think I've ever commented anonymously on your blog - if I have it was not intended. I comment only under my own name (or, some time ago, as Paul W at kiwiblog and a few other places).
Can't recall what I said about Clark, but I do take offence about the whole arguement that because she is a woman everybody poured scorn on her. She demanded and got grudging respect in her first term and then lost the plot IMO through her second term. It's sad that people turn to the lowest common denominator and blame people for looking at them as female/gay or whatever when the real reason why I didn't like her was the breathtaking dishonesty that she engaged in. I have Green friends who still cannot forgive her for lying about GM corn - I mean that itself would bring down a PM or minister in other countries where the people are not sheep like we have in NZ.As for the other issue. Being a fan of the right wing of Labour and coming from the "Top of the South" Labour fraternity myself I was surprised to read an email that I believed was from the 'left' of the party. I take allegations like this very seriously, and I had only just received another letter from an anonymous source accusing a Labour candidate of making false allegations of that variety a few years ago. Looking into both the former one was obviously fake. We decided to push it out anyway and pretend we were sucked in, although I admit to leaving more hints than I should have, but as I said - it did get the person involved to quickly backtrack. If I find out who did it they have a lot to answer for.The other letter I got has also been checked up and is factual too. However I have sat on it until after the election and I probably will leave it be. But it does beg the question - WHY trivialise that issue in the first place?Having met the MP involved a couple times it does make me wonder why this was ever "imagined" up by somebody in the first place - and why him?Cheers.
Heine, I guess it's now impossible to know what motivated the various parties to this faux-scandal but I remain of the view that propogating it was wrong. Perhaps it's best to leave it at that.On the issue of criticism of Clark, I'll simply say that while I accept she made errors justifying some criticism, the constant references to her gender, her looks, her sexuality and her husband's sexuality, her marriage and her relationship with Judith Tizzard, were nothing short of mysogyny. Perhaps if people who were angered by specific errors had limited their criticisms to just those errors they'd have been less susceptiable to being labled sexist asses. Few did however.
I can live with that.I think much of why there was a lot to ask about Helen was because she took the unusual step of being very very secretive and private, unlike any PM that we have had before. Beforehand we all knew about Langes Mrs (both of them) and Burton Shipley, Bolgers wife and Thea Muldoon. For Helen to provoke the debate was how she swam "up-stream" with her choice of attire and her steadfast approach to not being seen with or being close to her husband. NZ is more liberal than you think, or at least I hope! But her veil of secrecy meant even non political people used it as a "is she or isn't she" bit of humour.
Post a Comment