I despise Chris Bishop – but this snapchat allegation isn’t fair

By   /   February 12, 2018  /   19 Comments

TDB recommends Voyager - Unlimited internet @home as fast as you can get

If this is simply a case of him choosing to be on a social media platform and then getting contacted on that platform by teenagers, then the attempts to smear him as some type of sleaze or predator are outrageous and defamatory.

I despise Chris Bishop, here were my thoughts on his gutless u-turn on cannabis reform and his childish response on twitter.

I’m no fan of the bloke.

But the way Fairfax have tried to spin his use of snapchat into something nefarious is pretty grubby and below the belt.

Brothers and sisters, I’m all for going to war with our enemies and I love nothing more than to smash the right, but we fight above the belt, we don’t go low. Attacking someone based on a lie or a falsehood has no honour and I have no respect for those who use such attack methods.

The important questions here are did Bishop initiate the contact and if he did what was actually said?

We know some parents weren’t happy and that’s fine, they complained and he immediately changed his snapchat settings. If this is simply a case of him choosing to be on a social media platform and then getting contacted on that platform by teenagers, then the attempts to smear him as some type of sleaze or predator are outrageous and defamatory.

I don’t like the bloke and think he’s gutless for voting against the cannabis reform, but trying to paint him out as a sleaze in a social media environment where mere accusation is now the evidential threshold and the death of due process the real victim, I think Fairfax should be forced to apologise for the framing of their story if there is nothing more to come out.

I’m not kicking a person when they are on the ground based on a  lie. There’s no honour in that.

 

***
Want to support this work? Donate today
***
Follow us on Twitter & Facebook
***

19 Comments

  1. Grace Miller says:

    Nope.

    He’s a groomer. Been caught.

    It’s 2018 ffs, Bomber. Talking daily with 13yr old girls on SM. He’s not their uncle, brother, relative. He was caught grooming, and fuck him.

    Are there any teen boys paedobreath was talking to? Or just 13yr old girls? As for ‘future voters’ that would fly if they were 17. 13 is just too fucking far away from reality to be credible.

    #Bishisagroomer and I’m glad he got caught and told to stop that shit. It’s not as if we don’t know the perils of social media. If he were talking to my daughter, he’d have no nuts. #truestory

    • I'm right says:

      Hmmmm seems to me Grace you are the type of person Martyn penned this blog post for! You see child abductors behind every corner and all men are rapists outlook. I would safely bet you would be the type of person who upon seeing a father waiting outside a primary school to pick up his kid(s) would phone the police as you still haven’t grasped the fact that not all women fulfil that role in 2018. You are nothing but a conspiracy theorist and delusional. Will you call the police on Clarke when he picks up the kid(s) from primary or is he safe as he is of the left of politics?

    • Strypey says:

      The last time I checked, an elected official exchanging private messages with people under 18 (male, female, or otherwise) was not, in itself, a crime. Regardless of how objectionable his career history and parliamentary voting record might be, Bishop is innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. Margaret Atwood, author of ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’, makes this point eloquently in her response to critics who accuse her of being a “Bad Feminist”:
      https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/am-i-a-bad-feminist/article37591823/

      Grace Miller may remember those arrested in Operation 8, who were also considered “guilty because accused” (to quote Atwood), and who also faced trial by media. It was wrong then, and it’s wrong now.

  2. Castro says:

    He’s a Natzi; he should be removed by any means necessary.

  3. Te Reo Putake says:

    ” … where mere accusation is now the evidential threshold and the death of due process the real victim.”

    You have some high powered backing for your position, Martyn!

    “Peoples lives are being shattered and destroyed by a mere allegation. Some are true and some are false. Some are old and some are new. There is no recovery for someone falsely accused — life and career are gone. Is there no such thing any longer as Due Process?”

    – Donald J Trump.

    • Tiger Mountain says:

      Bloody hell! online discourse is a rampaging beast sometimes

      perhaps Martyn is slightly over compensating for his previous remarks on Mr Bishop, the general principal of due process ideally should not need stating-but really-a filthy tobacco industry Nat MP, engaging with 13 year old girls on Snapchat, who are not relatives, or anywhere near voting age…

      answer honestly folks-if a Labour MP had been in this position what would the likely reaction have been? though some are saying this media attention on Bishop may be related to Nat factions getting elbow room

      • Sam Sam says:

        You can tell the age of followers by the comments on your Facebook and adjust/appeal to your audience. That the voting age is 18 does not preclude kids from being interested. The moment it hurst, the moment the shoe pinches they’ll be jumping around, and they’ll get interested very fast. We can not shield kids from the internet because it’s an unformed medium. Those that bring old habits to new mediums tend to behave like how they were brought up and can only use the Internet in a limited way. A generation with out those hang ups are freer to do things there predecessors are incapable of comprehending.

        The saying brake the cycle comes to mind.

    • Francesca says:

      You’re triggered by the name Donald Trump it seems. How do you feel about Margaret Atwood , Germaine Greer, Lionel Shriver and many other feminists saying pretty much the same thing?

    • Even Trump occassionally gets it right… It’s like Lotto – one day you win $35.

      • Francesca says:

        And it also struck me that those very words could have been aptly used back in the day as a protest to McCarthyism.

  4. countryboy says:

    You are right @ BB.

    Having said that… chris bishop? Not a good look. Now, fuck off and leave kids entirely alone no matter your agenda. And you do have an agenda. What IS your agenda? Was your agenda? To influence children into voting for a political party that’s entirely amoral and indifferent to humanity unless humanity can turn out a dollar?
    Or something else?
    What ever, you do have an agenda bishop. What is it? An adult male talking to children on-line that he doesn’t know is worthy of closer inspection and if that closer inspection takes some skin off? Tough. Who cares? Fuck off.

  5. mary_a says:

    Chris Bishop should have known better than to engage in ongoing chat with 13 year old girls on social media. That would/did lead to all sorts of speculation and allegations, something I’m sure he knew in the first place.

    At first I was a bit suspicious. Another Natz perve, in the mold of John Key, got sprung. However, now I feel I might have got it wrong there, prejudging Bishop unfairly. I don’t think Bishop meant any harm, other than to maybe introduce young people to politics (National) via social media, something which I think he might have been wise doing in more public areas, such as schools, clubs, meetings etc, for his own protection than anything else.

    I’m not a Natz supporter by any means (heaven forbid!), but Bishop has always come across to me as a reasonably intelligent man. A future Natz leader maybe. So what possessed him to start up a SnapChat account to chat to teenagers through is a complete mystery.

  6. I fully concur with Martyn on this issue.

    I may despise Bishop’s right wing politics. I may criticise his hypocrisy in willing to work for the tobacco industry whilst voting against medical marijuana reform…

    … but from what I’ve read in Fairfax, there appears to be no story here. We don’t know (a) who contacted who and (b) what the contents of those Snapchat messages were.

    As far as I can determine, it’s condemnation-by-innuendo.

    I wouldn’t write a story on such vague information and I’m not a professional journo bound by their code of ethics. I’m a blogger, and even I know that Bishop is being unfairly treated here.

    I’m with Martyn on this; unless Fairfax can find more evidence, they owe him an apology and retraction.

  7. Jonty says:

    They will be working hard to distract the public and discourage their enemies to prevent the claim that a certain First Man was notorious for a panty thieving and panty sniffing problem while at university halls of residence. Club 17, anyone? Any former members care to pipe in?

  8. Knarf says:

    Nothing wrong with engaging directly with young people, better than a form letter from his secretary saying “your views have been conveyed to Mr. Bishop”. Probably better if he ditches the snapchat and makes all his messages public on twitter.

  9. The Other Mike says:

    I find the timing… interesting, apropos Blinglish/Caucus weekend etc etc. Supposedly only Pullya and Joyce knew a couple of weeks ago about Bill’s plans. Now who would benefit from a timely (and deniable) leak about it?

    Judith perhaps?