I just want to know if he was wearing his mayoral cape and hat.
and nothing else of course . Good question but would that make it even more morally reprehensible or just more interesting.
Why is the mayoral garb more sacrosanct than the Ranfurly Shield?
I am sure he regrets using public offices for these ‘private’ and ‘personal’ activities ’ , but that doesnt make amends to those who believe those places not be used for salacious purposes by those who temporarily hold the permanent public office of Mayor.
Christ, if everyone who had done some sort of hanky panky at a place of work at some stage in their past lost their job, NZ would sink under the weight of the unemployed. It's right under "go on OE" as a right of passage isn't it?
Will he be posting those tantalising pics of the young lady in what appeared to be lingerie that flashed briefly on tv one last night as a headliner for the story?
See you in the bakery
Why do we admit such people as citizens.
Please go away.
I view the whole manufactured Brown scandal as pure Nixon Drudge garbage. The supposedly wronged Chinese women seems to come from another Planet. She has no concept in my judgement of western truth, loyalty, justice or democratic politics. The truth for Ms Chung is what the highest bidder wants. Why do we admit such people as citizens.
I agree with your first sentence, but then, wow, what a spectacular way to both completely miss the point and signal your own racial prejudices.
#1: I thought the whole scandal was supposed to be about forcing Brown out of the mayoralty, or at least giving him as much political trouble as possible. So why focus on Chuang?
#2: Given the way they've handled their source, I'd say it's Slater and co. who don't understand "western truth, loyalty, justice or democratic politics", and given her behaviour and statements, not to mention the fact that she was taking an active part in democratic politics, Chuang has a much firmer grasp of such concepts than those she made the bad mistake of dealing with.
#3: Why do you feel the need to focus on her Chinese-ness? Is she just some mysterious, inscrutable Other in your eyes? Can you not see her as a person? And where do you get off questioning anybody's worthiness to be a New Zealand citizen?
I'm disgusted by your comment.
Don't feed the troll and let Russell take out the trash when he gets back from the supermarket? Still, to be a bit of a Pollyanna, it's one hell of a reminder that Public Address more typically adds value to any subject isn't it?
I’m disgusted by your comment.
Congratulations on passing your humanity test.
Note those not disgusted by the above post will be receiving their boarding passes for the B ark shortly in the mail, have a wonderful trip.
DPF responds to this post by objecting that it isn't about something else, namely, the thing that everyone else has been talking about everywhere else:
In a similar vein, Russell Brown has devoted an entire column to the Len Brown issue. Except in his 1,32 words on the issue he spends 1,181 words on the the so called centre-right people involved and just 51 words on the role of Len Brown. That is almost hysterically comical. The most Russell could muster was to say it was poor judgement to bonk at work and he can no longer play the family-man card!
Meanwhile, in his post on this morning's revelations about the story, this is what manages to muster about the ethics of whaleoil:
It’s ironic that Whale Oil demanded a higher level of proof than many in the media would have.
The overt racism in High Tory's two posts on PAS makes me feel ill. And angry.
I don't want to feed the troll either, Craig, but I also don't want to just avert my eyes and hope that someone else will make her/him go away so I don't have to be bothered by her/him. I don't want to just look in the other direction and pretend that someone didn't leave this large stinking mess in the middle of this community.
High Tory, take your racist remarks somewhere else. Actually, preferably nowhere else. No one needs to hear that kind of poisonous sentiment.
Yes, sexist racist troll is sexist and racist. Quelle surprise, etc.
Nonetheless, it appears that the council is now to conduct a formal investigation into that aspect of the story.
I've got just the title for their report: The Anti-luminaries.
the council continuing to respect Len, because, correct me if I am wrong, it is only they who have the power or ability to make him take responsibility for his actions in this particular matter.
As Rich said, Len's elected, not employed. The only way he goes is to resign or to become ineligible to hold office. The latter requires a quite serious criminal conviction while in office, or being subjected to compulsory treatment for a mental health issue. It wouldn't matter if the rest of the council thought he was the unholy spawn of a liaison between the Blubbery Cetacean and Sarah Palin, they cannot eject him from office.
I have mentioned this elsewhere but one of the responses that has been used is that everybody does it as in
Christ, if everyone who had done some sort of hanky panky at a place of work at some stage in their past lost their job, NZ would sink under the weight of the unemployed. It’s right under “go on OE” as a right of passage isn’t it?
Not picking on you Kyle as it has been used plenty of times
But in my chosen profession and plenty of others if your wife?partner caught you doing that bang out the door you went
I am not suggesting it doesn't happen but not everybody does it
I am not suggesting it doesn’t happen but not everybody does it
I never said everybody does it. Just that lots of people have, and any public outcry for anyone to lose their job for having sex in their office is going to be loaded with hypocrites.
There are professions and work sites where that might be the case, but I don't think the council offices qualify. Even the Ngati Whatua room that's been mentioned isn't a sacred space.
I hope you’re running the Tories election strategy. That's probably being unkind to the Key government.
As bored as I generally am of all this for reasons others have mentioned, this one grates for me:
I assume Chuang and Brown had a legitimate working relationship if they were able to avoid suspicion at the time. So a reference wouldn’t necessarily be out of place.
I've always understood when giving a reference to the potential employer, the relationship is important so the employer can assess what they're getting in that context, and relationships like family members are usually frowned upon. With this sort of thing I'd have intuitively put it into that category. It doesn't exactly seem to have been the smartest thing for Ms Chuang to put him forward as a reference to begin with, but both seemingly knew it was being given without total honesty of the connection.
Anyway it's a minor point in the scheme of things. For me at least I've often found that by the time references are checked, employment decisions have virtually been made pending the discovery of a good reason to re-assess.
DPF responds to this post by objecting that it isn’t about something else, namely, the thing that everyone else has been talking about everywhere else:
What an utterly, utterly inane comment that was by DPF. Especially:
the so called centre-right people involved
Fucksake. That's exactly who they were. At the last four elections.
Still, it does further indicate that outlining the sorry history of these people has got under some skins. There’s that.
The point about Brown's reference for his mistress is one of political patronage: whether that reference was ethically appropriate for the Mayor to make to the appointer of that position being sought. That is, who employs the appointer and whether Brown's undoubted influence as Mayor was used heavy-handedly (ie a chat with the appointer along the lines of "do it") or more discreetly ("would you have a look at this possibility old chap though I know there are other good candidates"). Also whether Ms Chuang was a candidate who would have been under serious consideration if Brown had been nowhere around the situation.
In the latest bizarre twist, it appears Jock Anderson has been fired from the NBR for his editorial that said Brown should stay on as mayor.
I find it hard to believe, but there it is in #000000 and #ffffff. http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/nbr-journalist-dismissed-147312
Yup. That's bizarre.
That is, who employs the appointer and whether Brown’s undoubted influence as Mayor was used heavy-handedly (ie a chat with the appointer along the lines of “do it”) or more discreetly (“would you have a look at this possibility old chap though I know there are other good candidates”).
I wasn’t actually either of those though. He was listed as one of several referees and his office confirmed that Chuang was competent.
I've never read the NBR, are they non-biased on both sides of the political spectrum?
it appears Jock Anderson has been fired from the NBR for his editorial that said Brown should stay on as mayor.
For a while I was "I don't even.....???".
But then I realised it makes perfect sense. Stating the blindingly obvious is absolutely against NBRs code of conduct and entirely consistent.
Anderson was dismissed yesterday for failing to comply with specific instructions to treat coverage of the Len Brown affair in an impartial and unbiased manner.
Isn’t an “impartial and unbiased” editorial like a quiet orgasm, especially from the pen of Jock Anderson who isn’t exactly unknown for leaving people to die waiting to know what he really thinks. ‘Bizarre’ is very polite way to put it, Russell.
Oh well, I'm sure the nigh on inevitable Employment Court action will be covered in an impartial and unbiased manner by Todd Scott's august organ. :)