Eff'nhell, National...

[Wainuiguy]

If this is correct,  he may not have been the best choice forNational. A former flat mate has said that she had to flee out her bedroom window due to his behaviour.

https://www.odt.co.nz/star-news/star-nat...tI5kbTRlj8

Uffindell's former flatmate, whom RNZ has agreed not to name, lived with the man and three other Otago University students for several months in Dunedin in 2003.

She told RNZ Uffindell engaged in a pattern of bullying during their second year at university, describing him as "verbally aggressive".

Uffindell would trash the house after "excessive" use of alcohol and drugs, she said.

"This was intimidation. This was bullying. I didn't feel safe," she said.

The woman said she eventually moved out of the flat after having to lock herself in her bedroom to avoid a drunken outburst one night.

"He was smashing on my door and yelling obscenities and basically telling me to get out - 'hit the road, fatty'.

"I ended up climbing out of my bedroom window and ran to a friend's house to stay the night. I feared for my safety. I was scared."

The woman said it was not an isolated incident: "it was just the straw that broke the camel's back." Her father travelled to Dunedin the next day to help her move out, she said.
Speaking to RNZ, the woman's father corroborated his part in the story and said his daughter had been "seriously upset".

"The flat itself was completely trashed. There wasn't a stick of furniture left. There was no crockery left. There were no handles left on anything. It had all been broken."

He said he gave Uffindell and two of the other flatmates "a serious piece of [his] mind" at the time.

"It was clear... [Uffindell] had real issues, real problems... he was out of control."
The woman said she was traumatised by the event and did her best to avoid Uffindell from then on: "my stomach would absolutely flip and drop if I saw him."

Looking back, the woman said she should have spoken to someone or taken some sort of action, but she was too scared. Uffindell never apologised for his actions, she said."

Regardless if this accusation is all it says it won't matter.  True or untrue he is done and if I was him would turn around and walk away.  If in a weeks time it is revealed that the complainant is bipolar or had severe mental illness at the time it wont matter. Iike a retraction on the paper or on the TV News issued because of a reporting error no one remembers the retraction just the accusation.

---

Don't bother with Wainuiboy (DBPrice) - he is not posting here in good faith. He is, in fact, a troll.

A troll! You don't say

Better to be a troll than a cock right?

Isn't there a rule here that says there should be no advertising?

[Lilith7]

If this is correct,  he may not have been the best choice forNational. A former flat mate has said that she had to flee out her bedroom window due to his behaviour.

https://www.odt.co.nz/star-news/star-nat...tI5kbTRlj8

Uffindell's former flatmate, whom RNZ has agreed not to name, lived with the man and three other Otago University students for several months in Dunedin in 2003.

She told RNZ Uffindell engaged in a pattern of bullying during their second year at university, describing him as "verbally aggressive".

Uffindell would trash the house after "excessive" use of alcohol and drugs, she said.

"This was intimidation. This was bullying. I didn't feel safe," she said.

The woman said she eventually moved out of the flat after having to lock herself in her bedroom to avoid a drunken outburst one night.

"He was smashing on my door and yelling obscenities and basically telling me to get out - 'hit the road, fatty'.

"I ended up climbing out of my bedroom window and ran to a friend's house to stay the night. I feared for my safety. I was scared."

The woman said it was not an isolated incident: "it was just the straw that broke the camel's back." Her father travelled to Dunedin the next day to help her move out, she said.
Speaking to RNZ, the woman's father corroborated his part in the story and said his daughter had been "seriously upset".

"The flat itself was completely trashed. There wasn't a stick of furniture left. There was no crockery left. There were no handles left on anything. It had all been broken."

He said he gave Uffindell and two of the other flatmates "a serious piece of [his] mind" at the time.

"It was clear... [Uffindell] had real issues, real problems... he was out of control."
The woman said she was traumatised by the event and did her best to avoid Uffindell from then on: "my stomach would absolutely flip and drop if I saw him."

Looking back, the woman said she should have spoken to someone or taken some sort of action, but she was too scared. Uffindell never apologised for his actions, she said."

Regardless if this accusation is all it says it won't matter.  True or untrue he is done and if I was him would turn around and walk away.  If in a weeks time it is revealed that the complainant is bipolar or had severe mental illness at the time it wont matter. Iike a retraction on the paper or on the TV News issued because of a reporting error no one remembers the retraction just the accusation.

---

A troll! You don't say

Better to be a troll than a cock right?

Isn't there a rule here that says there should be no advertising?

"If in a weeks time it is revealed that the complainant is bipolar or had severe mental illness at the time it wont matter."



Ah, that old standby, quick,  ' Lets malign the witness'

[king1]

orrrr, maybe in a weeks time there will be several more complainants come forward... He did seem to have a rather fuzzy recollection on whether there might be any other 'incidents'

[king1]

A troll! You don't say

Isn't there a rule here that says there should be no advertising?

The no advertising/spam rules (2.c. and 2.i.) apply to post spamming, for obvious reasons...
For signatures a simple text link is fine - Rule 5 - "reasonable size and does not contains images ... maximum two lines ".
That might get reviewed if anyone started putting up paragraphs of advertising blurb in the signature, but there is a character limit in signatures...

[Wainuiguy]

Regardless if this accusation is all it says it won't matter.  True or untrue he is done and if I was him would turn around and walk away.  If in a weeks time it is revealed that the complainant is bipolar or had severe mental illness at the time it wont matter. Iike a retraction on the paper or on the TV News issued because of a reporting error no one remembers the retraction just the accusation.

---

Better to be a troll than a cock right?

Isn't there a rule here that says there should be no advertising?

"If in a weeks time it is revealed that the complainant is bipolar or had severe mental illness at the time it wont matter."



Ah, that old standby, quick,  ' Lets malign the witness'

As she is anonymous we don't get to look at her as a witness or accuser.  And that is the issue in our current environment.  The accusation is enough.

---

Isn't there a rule here that says there should be no advertising?

The no advertising/spam rules (2.c. and 2.i.) apply to post spamming, for obvious reasons... 
For signatures a simple text link is fine - Rule 5 - "reasonable size and does not contains images ... maximum two lines ". 
That might get reviewed if anyone started putting up paragraphs of advertising blurb in the signature, but there is a character limit in signatures...

So a link to a business website is OK?  That isn't considered advertising?

From the rules:

Any posts deemed to be advertising or promoting any political party will be removed

[king1]

The no advertising/spam rules (2.c. and 2.i.) apply to post spamming, for obvious reasons... 
For signatures a simple text link is fine - Rule 5 - "reasonable size and does not contains images ... maximum two lines ". 
That might get reviewed if anyone started putting up paragraphs of advertising blurb in the signature, but there is a character limit in signatures...

So a link to a business website is OK?  That isn't considered advertising?

From the rules:

Any posts deemed to be advertising or promoting any political party will be removed

you are confusing post content with the users signature

[king1]

"If in a weeks time it is revealed that the complainant is bipolar or had severe mental illness at the time it wont matter."

Ah, that old standby, quick,  ' Lets malign the witness'

As she is anonymous we don't get to look at her as a witness or accuser.  And that is the issue in our current environment.  The accusation is enough.

Based on the extremely vivid description of events I would hazard a guess Mr Uffindell knows exactly who the accuser is...

[Wainuiguy]

So a link to a business website is OK?  That isn't considered advertising?

From the rules:

Any posts deemed to be advertising or promoting any political party will be removed

you are confusing post content with the users signature

So signatures can be links to businesses or political parties?

---

As she is anonymous we don't get to look at her as a witness or accuser.  And that is the issue in our current environment.  The accusation is enough.

Based on the extremely vivid description of events I would hazard a guess Mr Uffindell knows exactly who the accuser is...

He will know who she is sure but we dont.  Shouldnt the details of her story be as open to scutiny for fairness?

[Lilith7]

As she is anonymous we don't get to look at her as a witness or accuser.  And that is the issue in our current environment.  The accusation is enough.

Based on the extremely vivid description of events I would hazard a guess Mr Uffindell knows exactly who the accuser is...

Absolutely, he will. And anyone in her situation with the strong possibility of publicity about this, would have to be extremely foolish to not remain anonymous.
As it is, there are sure to be adverse comments about her.

[king1]

you are confusing post content with the users signature

So signatures can be links to businesses or political parties?

---

Based on the extremely vivid description of events I would hazard a guess Mr Uffindell knows exactly who the accuser is...

He will know who she is sure but we dont.  Shouldnt the details of her story be as open to scutiny for fairness?

1. Within reason... 

As I see it, the signature area is for you to sign off your posts in a personalised way.  It should reflect who you are, your identity so to speak.  @harm_less is a business owner and that is very much a part of his identity. I have no issues with the link to his own website (and I assume nzoomed doesn't either since it was there well before I joined) as it tells other users something about @harm_less.  

Now my signature is another level above, it tells you something about me, there are referral links to other websites, obviously I like a bargain and freebies...  I don't really consider that advertising, just a vain hope of a small pecuniary gain...

If you want to put a link to say National Party or https://www.national.org.nz/ in your signature then I have no real problem with it , it's a statement about who you are.  But, there is a line where one should not cross though...  If you were to use VOTE GREENS for example, that would no longer be a statement about who you are, but an endorsement or advert.

2.  No we probably shouldn't shove the victim out into the limelight so they may be accosted/trolled or otherwise by a certain demographic... Perhaps lets just wait until it is necessary, for example if Mr U violently (excuse the pun) refutes the allegations

[Oh_hunnihunni]

I guess the original victim of the childhood beating better stand up in public too, so he is considered a valid 'witness'?

---

So now the LotO is blaming his staff again. First they stuffed up on Te Puke being Hawaii or whatever, now he blames them for keeping him out of the U mess.

Your staff surely? You hired them...

Poor buggers.

[TinkandTiff]

Well chosen Nats. Fits the profile perfectly. Bully. Picks on the weaker. Refuses to acknowledge errors. Until it suits...

Two words for this post:

Trevor Mallard

And that wasn't 22 years ago.

Exactly!!!! Well said.
As the wife of someone who was hit by Mallard a few years ago. He is a total bully, and always has been.
Bloody double standards. My husband never even got an apology.

[Praktica]

Two words for this post:

Trevor Mallard

And that wasn't 22 years ago.

Exactly!!!! Well said.
As the wife of someone who was hit by Mallard a few years ago. He is a total bully, and always has been.
Bloody double standards. My husband never even got an apology.

So - that excuses the National party, and Uffindell, does it?

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Two words for this post:

Trevor Mallard

And that wasn't 22 years ago.

Exactly!!!! Well said.
As the wife of someone who was hit by Mallard a few years ago. He is a total bully, and always has been.
Bloody double standards. My husband never even got an apology.

Bit personal for a public message board, you could be identified via this - if that is the incident is a matter of public record and not a private tiff...

[king1]

Two words for this post:

Trevor Mallard

And that wasn't 22 years ago.

Exactly!!!! Well said.
As the wife of someone who was hit by Mallard a few years ago. He is a total bully, and always has been.
Bloody double standards. My husband never even got an apology.

I presume this was reported to Police, bad behaviour doesn't change unless there are consequences for it.

[SueDonim]

I see a lot going on here.

There was an article (I think I saw a link somewhere above on here) about all the "National" problem-people. But it left out the one that I think was their biggest problem - Bob Clarkson. They don't seem to have learned to actually "look" at who they are endorsing. But ....

The first story about Uffindell was a school incident. Never taken to court, just dealt with by the school. So what happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Schools have a bad record for "dealing" with stuff internally and in doing so justice is not always served. And how many "successful" people started out being expelled from school? I can think of another one that I used to work with. She was very proud of it and it didn't hold her back at all, even though it should have been a red flag. When I first saw the article about Uffindell, I thought "well at least he might be able to stand up for himself against all the bullies in parliament". Can anyone deny that there are plenty of them?

The university flat incident is more serious simply because he was older, but also sounds like the sort of idiocy that goes on with students. An enquiry will be "he said"/"she said" and we'll probably never really know the truth. What is most alarming about it is his admission about drug taking. That level of drinking is bad enough, but to now be admitting blatant law breaking is pretty serious.

If these and any other incidents had been tried and convicted, would we then say he's done his penance and can move on? The first of these may not have been tried and convicted, but was punished so does the punishment need to continue into adulthood? For the second, does he still drink and take drugs to that degree? Or has he grown up? Can we accept that with maturity may come real regrets? Or does he have to be punished forever?

At least it's only a year until the "real" election and time will tell whether Tauranga really wants him.

Overall, many MPs from all parties seem to be keeping their heads down. I think picking on Uffindell is mainly a matter of timing, and just another part of our overtly bully-society. Certainly the press is very good at it.

[king1]

for myself, the 'wrong' I see is in not coming clean on all this past behaviour before the election. In politics it is a given that dirt will be dug up and skeletons will be found...

[harm_less]

....
At least it's only a year until the "real" election and time will tell whether Tauranga really wants him.

I'm picking that Uffindell will be 'dog tucker' well before the national election shows its preferences.

[SueDonim]

for myself, the 'wrong' I see is in not coming clean on all this past behaviour before the election.  In politics it is a given that dirt will be dug up and skeletons will be found...

He apparently declared the school incident to those involved in the selection. And presumably they didn't see it as important enough to tell Luxon. Uffindell's naivety might be his biggest downfall. I'm sure what he has done is no worse than many of those now around him in parliament, it's just that he was outed in an unfortunate way.

---

....
At least it's only a year until the "real" election and time will tell whether Tauranga really wants him.

I'm picking that Uffindell will be 'dog tucker' well before the national election shows its preferences.

Time will tell. I'm glad it's not my electorate.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

He did tell the selection panel. Which underlines my contention that the Nats need to start hiring better candidates. Or revisit their own ideas about what is an acceptable skeleton...