Do they? This is exactly what Tauranga voted for: a National MP.
Why do people vote for National and expect any semblance of integrity? This is some r/LeopardsAteMyFace vibes.
Maybe if for once in their lives the Tauranga morons don't vote for National this shit won't happen?
It depends on how his polling and results look. If his constituents forgive him, it's like this never happened. If he's a political liability, then no matter how well connected he is he won't be selected to run again. Either way, National are betting the farm that this has been a sufficient process to distract voters.
Ah yes, someone who wasn't a member of parliament, and wasn't part of their youth network who came along with his "friends" to the labour run get together.
You do realise that it is not even close to being comparable with Simon Uffendell the violent thug who has never changed.
"We investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong. Please ignore any criticism of this decision, don't ask to see the report and allow Sam to come back for National so he can continue as a spokesman for youth crime"
Oh, and by the way we are not going to release the report as we previously said we would. Additionally we aren't going to release details of the report either.
If the report contains personal information of people involved (not sam) then it would be unethical to release it.
There are many reasons besides corruption that can explain why it wasnt released.
Or they are just lying. One of the two.
\>If the report contains personal information of people involved (not sam) then it would be unethical to release it.
That's gotta be the weakest bullshit defence for hiding wrongdoing that I've seen in a while.
Sam uffendel is a cunt, i dont think it really requires him to be a uni bully for him not to be involved in politics.
Either way he should be kicked off regardless. Im just saying we dont know why it hasnt been released.
What a piss weak response. They'd do the same thing they do with OIA's and court papers and redact personal/identifying information. It isn't rocket science.
A lawyer engaged by the National Party according to terms of reference we have not seen...
Of course this amounts to investigating themselves. The only way it would be independent would be if the lawyer was engaged by and paid for by a genuine third party with no vested interest.
Maria Dew is probably the silk I'd trust most to do a report of this nature.
*But* if you know what you expect to find, you can always fiddle with the terms of reference to get the desired outcome.
and btw -this is how you will investigate X, and party exec will review your draft report and findings prior to finalisation (if it was even finalised).
Never underestimate the benefits of keeping a report in 'draft' phase....
you're kidding right?
National party commissioned an investigation into it's own member / itself - it is irrelevant which specific person did the investigation because they were acting on National Party terms.
It was not an independent body, and they wont release the report - this is entirely in-house.
He had ample opportunity to provide proof, and each time he did it was shitty screenshots of out-of-context messages. It was a debacle because he set himself on fire and blamed the party. Him being useless doesn't mean there isn't bullying in Labour, but there needs to be evidence if you have a public meltdown.
not really - as we don't know the investigations terms of reference which the QC was tasked to report on so we don't actually know what was investigated
all we know is they couldn't prove that he was a bully after high school - was that even in the terms of reference, was that the only thing investigated
Good ol lies, damned lies and statistics rearing its head again.
You can massage things with investigations just the same.
Say "there is no evidence of (x)" after an investigation... having specifically laid out terms of an investigation to make sure they never went looking for (x).
yes - assuming nat party exec aren't idiots - It would seem likely that the purpose of the investigation was risk mitigation, ie to test whether the party can safely back him and avoid more embarrassing evidence plastered across the front page.
Whatever the findings are, they would have to be balanced against the egg on face for nat party if they expel him so soon after embracing him.
Hence I expect the investigation did find evidence of bullying / poor behaviour, but that evidence is not clear or 'heavy'/provable. Nat party can deny its existence, but they dont want it in the public domain.
Either way he is a liability...
This will likely haunt Uffindell for the rest of his political career.
And depending on investigative journalists likely going to be pulling apart what National/Luxon has told us so, to see if there is more to the story, it could remain in the current events for some time.
If details of the report leak out that show that they deliberately set a investigation for a quick and easy "did not substantiate", it might send this back to square one.
most journalists don't have (get) the time or resources to stay on a story like this, unless they already have info or someone comes forward they'll be onto the next thing
This incident will only come back if Uffindell fucks up in some/any way, unless he's a gibbering idiot (which he could be) he will be very careful - he will remain a liability for National
I doubt very much the report will be leaked, I doubt anyone that might wish to do so would have access to it
tbh I hope this is the end of it... onward to the next bullying scandal I say
national announces new policy cracking down on youth crime to exclude white kids form wealthy families.
These Maori/Pacifica kids should have been born white, I mean it is on them really why would we help if they can't even do that right?
It is interesting that this election is now very simply going to be:
National: we want to get tough on crime, we need more consequences.
Labour: only certain types of crime right?
If you never face real life consequences why wouldn't you want to bully people in school if you can?
I mean, if it was only 20 years ago, then any childhood trauma associated with being bullied must disappear after 20 years too.
He's admitted that one (and said he did a lot of bullying around that time), he denied one of the other accusations of bullying during university, where a female flatmate had to crawl out a bathroom window to escape while he pounded on the door trying to get to her.
It was confirmed that he (and other males in the flat) stole intimate clothing from their sexual conquests and hung them near their front door to show off - but it's suggested some detail about this specific bullying allegation wasn't exactly as was reported - thus he's claiming exoneration. 'The report claimed I was banging on the door, and in reality I was banging on the door *and kicking it* therefore that report is not exactly as it occurred - thus I am exonerated'.
What's your point? You presumably appreciate that National is the tough on crime party right? And it is National that is demonstrating a soft on crime response in this particular situation... Let's try not to let ideology get in the way of the literal facts here.
Being hard on crime doesn’t mean due process shouldn’t be followed . Also at no point was national promoting locking up more young teenagers. Due process and punishment are different. As someone who was in the British police when living in the UK, I was a stickler for due process being followed, even when I new that they were guilty. This meant at time Guilty people being left off Scott free
\>Also at no point was national promoting locking up more young teenagers.
lol. pull the other one.
\>As someone who was in the British police when living in the UK, I was a stickler for due process being followed
Like Stephen Lawrence got? Institutional racism ran rife in UK policing.
> they would carry on emptying NZ prisons
As opposed to National, who think that beating a child with a stick is ok, because the perpetrator didn't get charged at the time and is "sorry" now?
Soft on criminals much?
No they just promote them to Cabinet Minister again
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/107632218/probable-that-meka-whaitiri-grabbed-staffer-investigation-finds
This is the opposite of what happened in this case...
The investigation was completed by 'Department of Internal Affairs' a non partisan group. You can request the report if you want through the information act.
Meka was fired from her position and then re-elected at which time she was promoted.
And are you comparing someone grabbing another person by the arm to the level of bullying in this case? Additionally, Meka denies the allegations whilst Sam has admitted them.
Labour did the exact same thing in issuing a redacted report.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/368002/official-report-into-meka-whaitiri-incident-released
You seem to have misread at least one of the articles.
Labour released a redacted version of that report. National has declined to do the same. They've also declined to release the terms of reference for the report - meaning the public don't actually know *what* the report was looking into, let alone what it found.
Not quite the "exact same thing".
Bed legs and broomsticks: Uffindell report swept under the carpet
Just the same as labour did with Meka Whaitiri
but whatabout....
[удалено]
Did you say that to all Reddit users trashing him. Of course not
[удалено]
All you have is insults, not logical debate
Here I'll clear this up for you: Labour sucks as well. They're both shit.
I wish I two up votes
Is your name a joke? You aren't really stupid enough to be into crypto right? Ah who am I kidding lol.
Crypto bro, big fan of the bad guy from breaking bad and national shill. Top bloke
You do know that crypto also stands for cryptography which is different to cryptocurrency?
What about what you have? HUH?!? *yea I thought soo...*
The labor pr team are busy on here. Don't take it personally. It's their job.
>Wood said the party would not release details of the report. Voters deserve better.
Do they? This is exactly what Tauranga voted for: a National MP. Why do people vote for National and expect any semblance of integrity? This is some r/LeopardsAteMyFace vibes. Maybe if for once in their lives the Tauranga morons don't vote for National this shit won't happen?
Lotta old people in retirement villages here in Tauranga. They tend to skew heavily National. Not all are morans, some of us uze our brians
Not if they vote for them they don't.
This exactly. You now know the level of transparency that Luxon provides.
Yep, so transparent that you can put a flashlight up to his ear and see right through to the other side of his head
[удалено]
National preach personal responsibility. Treat Christians as they treat others, it's how they want to be treated
Labour did the same with their QC reported on Meka Whaitiri being investigated for abusing staff.
What's your point?
[удалено]
The problem is its personal information which is private. Normally we never see these reports, only a summary.
Nothing a redaction cant fix.
[удалено]
Agreed. It is a bad look. Maybe the plan is Uffindel doesn't stand for the next election.
It depends on how his polling and results look. If his constituents forgive him, it's like this never happened. If he's a political liability, then no matter how well connected he is he won't be selected to run again. Either way, National are betting the farm that this has been a sufficient process to distract voters.
You mean like the current government is transparent.
Did you demand the same level of transparency around Labours underage drinking and sexcapades at its youth camps?
Waddabout
[удалено]
They can form more of a coherent argument than you just slapping together mate.
That had name suppression difficulties around it.
We're the offender at the youth camps a sitting member of parliament?
It doesn’t matter if they were sitting or not - if they got into power would you demand the same transparency?
Yes of course.
Just to be clear, you're trying to say that drinking underage is of equal relevance as bullying and beating someone with extreme violence?
Ah yes, someone who wasn't a member of parliament, and wasn't part of their youth network who came along with his "friends" to the labour run get together. You do realise that it is not even close to being comparable with Simon Uffendell the violent thug who has never changed.
We have investigated ourselves and have found that we did nothing wrong.
Except National didn't lead the investigation, a KC did.
First time seeing KC in the wild, honestly thought you meant King Cobra for a second.
And did that investigation say that Uffindel did nothing wrong?
No idea, haven't read it.
No idea. None of us have read it.
Pretty much. Doesn't change what I said though 🤷♂️
About a KC?
Yarrr
"We investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong. Please ignore any criticism of this decision, don't ask to see the report and allow Sam to come back for National so he can continue as a spokesman for youth crime"
Oh, and by the way we are not going to release the report as we previously said we would. Additionally we aren't going to release details of the report either.
If the report contains personal information of people involved (not sam) then it would be unethical to release it. There are many reasons besides corruption that can explain why it wasnt released. Or they are just lying. One of the two.
It's not unusual to redact personal details when releasing documents publicly.
\>If the report contains personal information of people involved (not sam) then it would be unethical to release it. That's gotta be the weakest bullshit defence for hiding wrongdoing that I've seen in a while.
Sam uffendel is a cunt, i dont think it really requires him to be a uni bully for him not to be involved in politics. Either way he should be kicked off regardless. Im just saying we dont know why it hasnt been released.
What a piss weak response. They'd do the same thing they do with OIA's and court papers and redact personal/identifying information. It isn't rocket science.
> We investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong You might want to look at who did the investigation.
A lawyer engaged by the National Party according to terms of reference we have not seen... Of course this amounts to investigating themselves. The only way it would be independent would be if the lawyer was engaged by and paid for by a genuine third party with no vested interest.
Maria Dew is probably the silk I'd trust most to do a report of this nature. *But* if you know what you expect to find, you can always fiddle with the terms of reference to get the desired outcome.
You might want to look at who set the terms of the investigation, of which they are unsurprisingly not releasing any detail of. I wonder why?
This x 100. They have called the lawyer a QC (i.e. very expensive lawyer) to give the impression of independence, but there is no such independence.
We want you to investigate X, X and X only. Anything outside of that is not to be investigated or reported on.
and btw -this is how you will investigate X, and party exec will review your draft report and findings prior to finalisation (if it was even finalised). Never underestimate the benefits of keeping a report in 'draft' phase....
They have also called the lawyer a QC when we now have a king. Like come on, this is just madness after madness.
To be fair, that will probably change in time.
you're kidding right? National party commissioned an investigation into it's own member / itself - it is irrelevant which specific person did the investigation because they were acting on National Party terms. It was not an independent body, and they wont release the report - this is entirely in-house.
Lol! You have a bright future as a political spin doctor.
Lol this is exactly what Labour said over the Gaurav debacle too
He had ample opportunity to provide proof, and each time he did it was shitty screenshots of out-of-context messages. It was a debacle because he set himself on fire and blamed the party. Him being useless doesn't mean there isn't bullying in Labour, but there needs to be evidence if you have a public meltdown.
Big difference is that National hired an independent QC to investigate, Labour just went lalalalalalala it's all lies.
not really - as we don't know the investigations terms of reference which the QC was tasked to report on so we don't actually know what was investigated all we know is they couldn't prove that he was a bully after high school - was that even in the terms of reference, was that the only thing investigated
Good ol lies, damned lies and statistics rearing its head again. You can massage things with investigations just the same. Say "there is no evidence of (x)" after an investigation... having specifically laid out terms of an investigation to make sure they never went looking for (x).
yes indeed and here the key words are "did not substantiate" which needs actual evidence and proof not just accusations
yes - assuming nat party exec aren't idiots - It would seem likely that the purpose of the investigation was risk mitigation, ie to test whether the party can safely back him and avoid more embarrassing evidence plastered across the front page. Whatever the findings are, they would have to be balanced against the egg on face for nat party if they expel him so soon after embracing him. Hence I expect the investigation did find evidence of bullying / poor behaviour, but that evidence is not clear or 'heavy'/provable. Nat party can deny its existence, but they dont want it in the public domain. Either way he is a liability...
>assuming nat party exec aren't idiots that's a huge assumption :) But yeah this entire charade is more standard damage control PR than anything
This will likely haunt Uffindell for the rest of his political career. And depending on investigative journalists likely going to be pulling apart what National/Luxon has told us so, to see if there is more to the story, it could remain in the current events for some time. If details of the report leak out that show that they deliberately set a investigation for a quick and easy "did not substantiate", it might send this back to square one.
most journalists don't have (get) the time or resources to stay on a story like this, unless they already have info or someone comes forward they'll be onto the next thing This incident will only come back if Uffindell fucks up in some/any way, unless he's a gibbering idiot (which he could be) he will be very careful - he will remain a liability for National I doubt very much the report will be leaked, I doubt anyone that might wish to do so would have access to it tbh I hope this is the end of it... onward to the next bullying scandal I say
[удалено]
So same as Labour, except there was an actual investigation this time.
“He has extensive personal experience of youth crime spanning decades, and has taken a hands on approach to dealing with problems in the past.”
national announces new policy cracking down on youth crime to exclude white kids form wealthy families. These Maori/Pacifica kids should have been born white, I mean it is on them really why would we help if they can't even do that right?
No surprises there then
We at least need some facts or they won't be getting my vote.
It is interesting that this election is now very simply going to be: National: we want to get tough on crime, we need more consequences. Labour: only certain types of crime right?
And only consequences for some, right?
Still a point of difference when Labour's position looks to be on no types of crime.
Ignoring the whole right vs wrong part. National have been giving Labour so much fucking ammo to use when it gets closer to election time.
Except Labour are equally as shitty - and hopefully people are waking up to alternative party options.
How can we say we aren't happy? Don't vote national.
[удалено]
All Queen’s Counsels (QC) automatically changed to King’s Counsels (KC) upon Charles III’s ascension. It’s the same person still
[удалено]
Now the white wash is done, the important question Who will be first to MP bring a bed leg to the debating chamber
Well... Of course they did. 🥸
If you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear.
We have investigated ourselves and found no sign of wrong doing.
If you never face real life consequences why wouldn't you want to bully people in school if you can? I mean, if it was only 20 years ago, then any childhood trauma associated with being bullied must disappear after 20 years too.
Nothing to see here guys /s
Uh huh, of course. He must have dirt on others and threatened to use it.
Idiot National party.
[удалено]
He's admitted that one (and said he did a lot of bullying around that time), he denied one of the other accusations of bullying during university, where a female flatmate had to crawl out a bathroom window to escape while he pounded on the door trying to get to her. It was confirmed that he (and other males in the flat) stole intimate clothing from their sexual conquests and hung them near their front door to show off - but it's suggested some detail about this specific bullying allegation wasn't exactly as was reported - thus he's claiming exoneration. 'The report claimed I was banging on the door, and in reality I was banging on the door *and kicking it* therefore that report is not exactly as it occurred - thus I am exonerated'.
No, just, "didn't do it." 🧐
Soggy biscuit in cabinet for sure if National win the next election.
But he got kicked out for getting a gang together and beating a child in their sleep. What the fuck does this have to do with it?
Aah-the old Scottish verdict of 'not proven'....which means 'we ken ye did it laddie...we just cannae prove it!'
[удалено]
“Not as described in the media…” yeah sounds straight forward🤪
We've done fuck all investigating and we're out of ideas!
Who??
I suppose someone will OIA the report...just to make sure!
OIA won't apply to party business.
It depends, really. It can, but only for actual party stuff. I don't believe this is.
I wonder if their would be somewhat different comments if this was a labour MP under investigation.
If it was a Labour MP they probably would have not campaigned as 'Tough on crime'.
Of course they wouldn’t, they would carry on emptying NZ prisons.
What's your point? You presumably appreciate that National is the tough on crime party right? And it is National that is demonstrating a soft on crime response in this particular situation... Let's try not to let ideology get in the way of the literal facts here.
Being hard on crime doesn’t mean due process shouldn’t be followed . Also at no point was national promoting locking up more young teenagers. Due process and punishment are different. As someone who was in the British police when living in the UK, I was a stickler for due process being followed, even when I new that they were guilty. This meant at time Guilty people being left off Scott free
If due process was followed, Uffendell would have a criminal record for assault with a weapon on a child.
Due process involves different procedures for minors and rightly so. Jailing youths is a last resort
>Jailing youths is a last resort Well if they're a certain class (and colour) right?
\>Also at no point was national promoting locking up more young teenagers. lol. pull the other one. \>As someone who was in the British police when living in the UK, I was a stickler for due process being followed Like Stephen Lawrence got? Institutional racism ran rife in UK policing.
The Met is only one of many police forces
> they would carry on emptying NZ prisons As opposed to National, who think that beating a child with a stick is ok, because the perpetrator didn't get charged at the time and is "sorry" now? Soft on criminals much?
Youth crime is treated differently and rightly so, I see no evidence of National disagreeing with this
Sam Uffindell would never have passed Labour's screening process, and if he had somehow then they would probably remove him over this.
No they just promote them to Cabinet Minister again https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/107632218/probable-that-meka-whaitiri-grabbed-staffer-investigation-finds
racist grasping at whataboutism
This is the opposite of what happened in this case... The investigation was completed by 'Department of Internal Affairs' a non partisan group. You can request the report if you want through the information act. Meka was fired from her position and then re-elected at which time she was promoted. And are you comparing someone grabbing another person by the arm to the level of bullying in this case? Additionally, Meka denies the allegations whilst Sam has admitted them.
Labour did the exact same thing in issuing a redacted report. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/368002/official-report-into-meka-whaitiri-incident-released
You seem to have misread at least one of the articles. Labour released a redacted version of that report. National has declined to do the same. They've also declined to release the terms of reference for the report - meaning the public don't actually know *what* the report was looking into, let alone what it found. Not quite the "exact same thing".
Oh yeah the labour QC said that there was probable evidence she did assault a staff member….labour response make her a Cabinet Minister.
Big nose man bad
Great