If there was any whiff of "trial by media" in the Darren Hughes debacle, as Phil Goff now alleges, it was over the way the leader of the Opposition handled it.
As has been repeatedly canvassed, Goff was stupid to think he could conceal the fact that a naked 18-year-old youth ran out of a house where Darren Hughes, chief Labour whip, and Annette King, deputy leader, both lived.
And this occurred after the youth, well-known in Labour circles, had been seen with Hughes at several Wellington bars. The Press Gallery was perfectly entitled to label this a sex scandal - they'd never buy kiss-offs like, oh, maybe the distraught teenager had been taking knitting lessons from King.
When National's Richard Worth was in the gun for allegedly sending lewd texts to a woman he later met in a hotel room, Goff didn't castigate the media for scrutinising Key and Worth. Why so prissy now?
Because Worth is history, but for Hughes it is different. Now the police have announced there will be no charges laid, Labour - and everyone else in Hughes' huge fan club, it seems - are welcoming him back to Parliament, perhaps as early as 2014.
The role of Phil Goff in this whole messy business demands scrutiny. The Labour leader tried to cover these allegations up, and it backfired on him. Even when the story finally broke publicly, Goff's changing positions on a daily basis feulled the story rather than killed it. And Coddington is right to point to the variance between Goff's positions with regard to Darren Hughes and Richard Worth; they couldn't have been more different.
Coddington then turns her attention to Hughes himself, and she's right on the money - check this out:
I, too, was one of Hughes' supporters but my sympathy for him as the underdog let me down. Hughes' arrogance, his refusal to take responsibility for his poor judgment on the night in question and lack of mea culpa leaves serious questions about his suitability as an MP.
Consider what the police actually said. The complaint against the former list MP did not reach the "evidential threshold" required to bring charges.
And how did Hughes respond? With a statement saying "to be falsely accused of something I did not do, let alone a serious crime, has been one of the most challenging experiences in my life".
Police have confirmed this was not a false complaint but Hughes, having been accused of a crime, then turned around and publicly accused this former friend of a crime.
And he thinks he can return to Parliament as an honourable member?
Was this necessary? Why not just thank his supporters? Why not just shut up?
Furthermore, there was nothing in his statement apologising to his caucus colleagues for the considerable trouble he has caused them through his selfishness.
It is all very well to blame a "media frenzy" for having to resign but Hughes chose to take this student home with him after a night out drinking.
After being in Parliament since 2002 and promoted to the position of whip, he still lacks the warning bell in his head which says, "Don't go there".
Once again Coddington is dead right. The police decision not to lay charges against him was not quite the vindication which he claimed, and the police have since pointed out that bthey did not regard the complaint against the former MP as false or vexacious. That is a markedly different outcome to complete exoneration.
Spare a thought for the complainant in all this. Something happened at Annette King's house in Wellington on that March morning; something caused the young man to run naked from the house; something troubled him so much that he went to the police and made a legitimate complaint against a well-known public figure. Hughes has essentially said that the complainant is a liar, and the police have rebutted that.
Only the complainant and Darren Hughes really know what went on that night. Unless one or both tells the whole story, the public perception will be that there is more to this than meets the eye, and perception matters in politics. Time will dim memories, but 2014 might be optimistic in terms of Darren Hughes' aspiration to return to public life.
22 comments:
In private Phil Goff will know he f**ked up big time but 27 years of living in the socialist world, mouthing the mantra that it is always somebody else's fault, the poor bugger just presents as a Possum in the headlights and the electorate judge him accordingly.
Can't let it go eh Inv2 - dog with a bone. Still, if there's a chance to cast Goff in a bad light, why not!
Shooting the messenger again Robert? Do YOU think that Hughes is 100% exonerated?
RG - Goff doesn't need any help to show himself as a fool - he does it naturally.
Goff comments about congratulating Darren were odd too. Its like "congrats on there not being enough evidence Darren".
What a stupid thing for Goff to say publicly!
You chose which message you want to deliver Inv2 - play the innocent all you will.
Must destry Goff! Must rake the muck!
Hughes has not been exonerated here. That is the cornerstone of this issue.
Hughes displayed poor judgment in inviting a person to the home of the Deputy Labour leader, Goff showed poor judgment in attempting to conceal the incident. Are these people deserving of anything less than contempt. Goff, "honourable?" Hardly!
IV2 it is a socialist trait to divert culpability and good old RG always rises to the task also.
Cadwallader
SIL @ 12 38 "must destroy Goff"
LMTO he did that to himself some time ago.
maybe the 18yo was actually hitting on Annette and Dazza came to her aid .. if Dazza wants to return to politics, the TRUTH must be told or stay away.
I see the blind hypocrite, Sir Bob, gets confused again.
"if there's a chance to cast Goff in a bad light, why not" .. change Goff to Key and it could be a description of Bobby himself. Do what I say, not as I do eh Bobby?
Hey Jabbs and Inv2 - the ol' chestnut, "Inv can dis Goff because Bob does too' doesn't wash in reality.
I challenge you to compare the number of anti-Goff posts from Inv2 to my anti-Key.
Inv wins hands-down.
He's truly obsessed.
Whatever Robert, but you STILL haven't answered the question I posed to you at 9.36am; you're too busy taking pot-shots at the messenger to address the message.
Inv2 - not too busy taking whatever, too busy getting off the island.
As to Hughes .. I don't give a toss about any of that pap. Can't for the life of me see why you're so obsessed with that drivel.
BTW; I like the alter egos you've been using lately Robert. Taniwha was good, but Stewart I Land took the biscuit. It's a pity that your style of prose gives you away ;-)
Hey Inv - I use my real name. I'm not 'taniwha' As for Stewart I Land, of course it ws me - not trying to disguise myself at all but using a computer that took forever to sign on to - I used an obvious nom de plume for fun.
Have you made your anti-Goof post count up yet?
You'll have dozens to my paltry few anti-Key posts, showing clearly that you are obsessed with smearing Goff at every opportunity, whereas I only occasionally feature Key's idiotic behaviour.
And where is Slater's nuclear-bomb expose???
I'm too, too bored by the damp squib that it is - aren't you Inv2? (or are you still rubbing your wee hands with glee? Careful you don't get friction-burns!)
And have those salacious Herald stories about the college boy who died hit the news stands yet Inv2?
You were quite worked up about it.
Wow....this Guyton creep is a nasty insecure piece of work isn't he?
@ James; Mr Guyton likes to convey that impression, but then he gets antsy when he gets called on it. He's a game-player from way back.
Inv2 - you keep trying to whip life back into the Hughes story - how about that Slater bomb though? And the Herald outrage?
What happened???
Hey Sonny Bill Guyton, take a deep breath, pinch your nose and have a quick look at Gotcha.
Now get your breath back and tell us what your opinion is of the chaos re the email harvesting or is that another inconvenient truth best left alone as the MSM are largely doing.
Apologies to Iv2 for the off topic.
Yes Mr Guyton you do not shit in your mess at home as much but you sure fling it about when you visit others. Sadly for you what lands on you seems worth the effort but to us it is merely entertaining if a little tiresome.
@ Gravedodger - you'll be pleased to see from my most recent post that the MSM IS taking an interest in the e-mail harvesting issue, and that RG has already tried to downplay it. I wonder why no-one from Labour is returning calls ...
Gravedodger - 'mere entertainment?' - my happiness is complete, but 'shit in my mess?'
Is that an Akaroaian colloquialism?
Here in the South, our birds have nests.Yours perhaps, are less systematic, free-wheelin' kinda birds.
Post a Comment