A strange comment from extreme left writer Chris Trotter during a conversation with NewstalkZB’s Larry Williams-
“Well, there is at tremendous amount of rumour flying New Zealand at the moment and I don’t know if the rumours are true of false. But, I would say if half – even half – of what is rumoured to have happened turns out to be true then certainly Phil Goff’s and Annette King’s positions will become untenable.”
You can listen to the full interview here–
TrueblueNZ 
17 responses to “Phil Goff and Annette King to quit over Hughes Affair? Chris Trotter’s Strange Comments”
Goff is party leader, so he will suffer on the judgement issue.
As for King, well, any shenanigans happened under her own roof, so it doesn’t look good for her either.
LikeLike
Has this matter been the subject of a D notice? The silence on it in the mainstream media is astounding. Why don’t they ask Hughes what happened? He says he did nothing wrong so why won’t he recount the events? Why don’t they ask more questions of Goff and King. Why is what happened that night so secret. Imagine if it was Sarah Palin?
LikeLike
If the issues at hand involve lewd homosexual behaviour . . rent boys and the like, then the PC media won’t elaborate too much on what went on. Ian Wishart will though if he finds out.
LikeLike
so true Red. Very quiet.
LikeLike
Has anyone got any idea why National and ACT will not press Goff and King for answers? I would not be surprised if as much pressure was put on the young man to drop charges as the pressure put on Tizard not to take her place in Parliament as she was legally entitled to.
LikeLike
“Has anyone got any idea why National and ACT will not press Goff and King for answers?”
Apart from that they are a collection of PC cowards do you mean? No, I don’t know of any other reason. Of course the most obvious one is that Labour has some dirt on someone in National. (or ACT)
LikeLike
“Of course the most obvious one is that Labour has some dirt on someone in National. (or ACT)”
That is quite possible and if this just involved inappropriate behaviour I could accept this. Political parties have an unwritten rule that such issues are not raised. The only exceptions I can recall are Muldoon and when Mallard made comments about Brash with Clark’s approval if not suggestion.
This involves an alleged serious criminal act and a likely cover up with no concern for the victim.
One difference between the left and the right are the that the right will seldom protect criminals. I consider myself a loyal ACT member but would not support an ACT MP with a strong case against him or her of a serious crime.
LikeLike
If true g- ood riddance, but sadly there are plenty of gormless, socialists thieves to take their place…
LikeLike
“Political parties have an unwritten rule that such issues are not raised. ”
Exactly, and that’s yet another stain on this flawed “democratic” system: the “players” are more interested in protecting their class than they are in doing the job they’ve been elected to. It would be refreshing if being a politician meant that you’d be walking on eggs all day every day, it would certainly filter a lot of trash out from those so keen to take on the job.
LikeLike
Sinner, I understand the matter can be discussed publicly while charges have not been laid. This happened in the Scott Watson case and helped convicted. Sadly it is highly unlikely that he is guilty.
Political parties have an unwritten rule that they do not talk about other MPs private sexual lives provided it involves consenting adults.
In this case there is the matter of consent that is in dispute.
I am not suggesting they talk about the case but talk about the behaviour and lack of honesty on the part of Goff and also what King knew and what she told Goff.
LikeLike
“I understand the matter can be discussed publicly while charges have not been laid.”
Where exactly do you suggest that any law can be found that states that a case cannot be publicly discussed after charges have been laid? It may be convenient for some to refrain from commenting on that basis, but it is certainly not illegal.
LikeLike
Bez, I cannot quote the law but I have heard numerous Talkshow hosts refuse to discuss a matter before the court. The media may report on such matters factually but not express an opinion. Now days jurors are generally allow home at night that is why these matters cannot be discussed publicly. I believe to do so is contempt of court.
LikeLike
Chuck: I agree. The matter in the Court of Appeal involving one Clayton Weatherston is to point. The thrust of the appeal is the affects of the media coverage at the time of the trial.
LikeLike
PS Why doesn’t someone who knows him, ring up Trotterski and ask him?
LikeLike
Two liars defending a closet-homosexual. What’s new?
LikeLike
But erikter: Is Trotterski lying too?
LikeLike
Please tell me all in an email. I will make some hay while the sun shines!!
LikeLike