Posts by Russell Brown
-
Up Front: Respectably-Dressed Sensible…, in reply to Emma Hart,
Sometimes I just want to weep. How do people get paid to write that poorly?
The phrase "not a single feather of evidence was plucked from the goose of truth" rather stood out for me.
Seriously?
I'm only just recovering from seeing Hilary Calvert on Backbenchers and now Pagani lobs that one at me? Shit's too weird for me.
-
Up Front: Respectably-Dressed Sensible…, in reply to Che Tibby,
it’s nice that charges have been dropped. what’s the consensus on members of parliament picking up teenagers?
They should not do so. Especially when the pick-up happens at or subsequent to an event they have attended in their capacity as an MP.
-
Up Front: Respectably-Dressed Sensible…, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
And I’m going to throw a pretty controversial notion out there – Paul Henry’s replicant-like lack of empathy on 60 Minutes this week is the respectable face of rape culture. It was painfully clear that he still regards his twatcocky misogyny towards women who don’t conform to his idea of how women should look and behave as good clean fun.
Craig, this is completely over the top. Think what you like about Henry, but this is way too fucking close to calling him a rapist and I will delete any further attempt to press such a point.
I further suspect that you would not say the same about John Key, who has had his own moments this year, not least in the company of Tony Veitch. Please, stop it.
-
Up Front: Respectably-Dressed Sensible…, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Have witnesses said this to anyone but Marshall?
So it’s possible there was no naked man? Really?
I'm trying to work out if there is any account other than that of Marshall, who has already been accused of asking another student to lie in an attempt to get the complainant's lecture schedule.
As I said, this doesn't have a bearing on the merit of the complaint, it just it occurs to me that it's possible that part didn't happen.
-
Up Front: Respectably-Dressed Sensible…, in reply to Kumara Republic,
And hot off the press… police have dropped all charges against Darren Hughes, for lack of evidence. Jonathan Marshall has a LOT of explaining to do, if he doesn’t want a libel suit to knuckle-sandwich him.
Oddly enough, it’s not clear whether what Marshall reported has any bearing on the validity of the complaint. But I did quite like on Kiwiblog commenter’s suggestion that his next move might be:
An interview with the “naked youth” Marshall claimed he was told about by the unnamed staff of an unnamed firm he claims were told about by their unnamed boss?
Because, actually, we only have Marshall’s word that that part even happened.
EDIT: The Herald says atm:
Mr Hughes and the complainant ended up at the home of Labour deputy leader Annette King, where Mr Hughes boarded when in Wellington, and some hours later, witnesses reported seeing the complainant naked in the street.
Help me out here. Have witnesses said this to anyone but Marshall? And has the naked man ever been positively identified as the complainant?
-
Hard News: Bishop Brian: It's worse than…, in reply to Hinemoana Baker,
I’m grateful you’ve unpacked the Church’s beliefs a little more for us here, Russell. I’ve spent a lot of time in the last few days trying to explain the differences between a church and a cult, but now I’ll just point to your blog! Incidentally I think it was Shane Jones who said the “I don’t believe a Māori could have written that” thing about the blog, not Hone.
Thanks and thanks. I've fixed that mistake. I also managed to briefly have Morgan Godfery as "Milton Godfery" too.
Clearly still not at optimum blog fitness ...
-
Hard News: Bishop Brian: It's worse than…, in reply to izogi,
Small aside, but Tim Selwyn noted on Tumeke that this originally aired on Maori TV and Campbell didn’t credit it as he perhaps should have.
Crazy I know, who’d think it, but Tim Selwyn is wrong.
Maori TV was there, but the Campbell Live report was all shot by their own cameraman, Harley Peters.
There is a relationship between Campbell Live and Maori TV, via Carol Hirschfeld, and they did once re-use some Maori TV stuff – but they credited t up the wazoo.
-
Up Front: Respectably-Dressed Sensible…, in reply to Deborah,
Based on what you have written (which is not to imply that it’s not correct, just that I wasn’t actually there so I don’t actually know, ’though I’m happy to take your word for it)… No, a person that drunk can’t give consent. So yes, that does imply rape, and I would hope that if he wanted to, he would be able to press charges.
That would, of course, have been a difficult view to put when the case was all over the headlines.
The original charge laid against him was, I understand, an actual rape charge.
The police dropped it after the defence was able to produce security camera evidence to show that would not have been possible – the complainant entered and left the alley in a matter of seconds. He’d otherwise have had no defence on his own part, not (or barely) being able to remember it.
The complainant wasn’t part of the original blowjob offer, and it must have been a vile experience to briefly be literally dragged into it when she went to check on her friends. I can understand why she might have held her ground when the cops tried to persuade her abandon any charge after the rape complaint was deemed unsustainable.
The original demand from the young women was for a kiss. He said “suck my dick”, and the two young women happily took that literally, so consent’s a bit messy. But no one was ever going to be prepared to see him as incapable or a victim.
The guy took it very hard, particularly when he had to go and tell his grandmother in person. And of course in Kiwiblog comments you could read various idiots declaring that he’d been “grooming underage girls”. It’s an interesting case to ponder.
-
Up Front: Respectably-Dressed Sensible…, in reply to Deborah,
but never one where he was drunk or under the influence of drugs,
Actually, this raises a view of the “prominent entertainer” case that no one ever really wanted to countenance at the time.
The entertainer was, by general agreement, so drunk that he couldn’t even remember the incident the following day. He was approached while staggering home at 3am by young women who weren’t – but was he in a fit state to give consent to what they proposed?
And yet, no one was ever going to accept that was anything like rape. Would it have been the same if gender roles were reversed?
-
Up Front: Respectably-Dressed Sensible…, in reply to Kumara Republic,
And hot off the press… police have dropped all charges against Darren Hughes, for lack of evidence. Jonathan Marshall has a LOT of explaining to do, if he doesn’t want a libel suit to knuckle-sandwich him.
I was wondering when that would turn up here.
Something obviously went terribly wrong on the night, what it was we may never know.
But I think there's no doubt that Hughes committed a massive error of judgement in going to a function in his role as MP, binge-drinking with first-year students then taking one home. For a man who is said to have been focused on a career in politics since childhood, it was a bad thing to do.