He said she said

The Spinoff has two statements on the Labour Party inquiry:

In spite of Jacinda Ardern’s exhortation that ‘it would be preferable if this case were not in the public domain’, differing accounts of what was said in an inquiry into the conduct of a (now former) Labour staffer, who denies wrongdoing, have been issued today to media from the chair of the Labour investigating committee, Simon Mitchell, and the complainant known as Sarah.

Below, we print the statements in full, both sent via a lawyer acting for Simon Mitchell and a lawyer acting for the complainants to The Spinoff. . . 

 It’s difficult to believe that the two statements are about the same investigation.

When you get he said, she said like this both can’t be right.

Both statements raise even more questions about who said and did what and when.

Both reflect even more poorly on the Labour Party and those involved in the whole messy business and do nothing.

Worse still Winston Peters has waded into the fray.

Asked what he had made watching the issue from the sidelines, the NZ First leader told Newstalk ZB there had been a lack of presumption of innocence.

“All that went flying out the window in what a disgraceful orgy of speculation and innuendo. None of which I can tell you, even from where I sit and what I know, will be proven by the evidence,” he said.

“What I saw unfolding is actually a disgrace.”

What’s a disgrace is the way the complainants were treated. Whether or not their complaints are right or wrong, they deserved to be treated sensitively and fairly.

What’s a disgrace is that the Deputy PM is undermining the PM.

What’s a disgrace is that the PM wasn’t fully informed and in control from the start and in spite of her best efforts isn’t now.

5 Responses to He said she said

  1. Tony Stuart says:

    Jacinda Ardern hasn’t done her image any good at all with her interview on Newstalk ZB this morning. When questioned about Grant Robertson’s role, she obfuscated totally. When asked if she would resign if there were adverse findings about her, she said she “knew” that would not be the case.

    Should we infer from that statement that she “knows” that, because the Terms of Reference for various investigations have been written in such as way as to exclude her role from any scrutiny?


  2. homepaddock says:

    Either she knew and has lied or didn’t know and there’s a whole lot of people who did know and didn’t tell her. Neither reflect well on her as a leader.


  3. Teletext says:

    Winnie TP’s statement is about as hypocritical as you can get. He has made his name in politics by using exactly the same tactics he has accused everyone else of using. The only true thing he said was that “it was a disgrace” but not for the correct reasons which were that many should have resigned, not only the two sacrificial lambs. Cindy will be exonerated of course as the party cannot afford to lose her. Probably the same for GR.


  4. freddy says:

    Can someone please explain why the police haven’t moved in to investigation the alleged assaults, given there are 12 complainants?
    Surely this is a police matter.


  5. homepaddock says:

    Police can only investigate if there is a complaint to them and the women don’t want to do that, at least not yet.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: