< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://sirhumphreys.com" > Sir Humphrey's: Holmes special on Mr Peter Davis kissing another man?

SIR HUMPHREY'S BLOG

SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved

Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.

The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.

Thursday, September 22, 2005

Holmes special on Mr Peter Davis kissing another man?

According to a TradeMe thread, Holmes will be running a special on Prime tonight involving video of Mr Peter Davis kissing a man (via Whaleoil). So it seems Roger's eyes weren't deceiving him on election night.

If the rumours are true then a certain political leader has not only been lying about her marriage for several decades (probably quite common in the political sphere), but has been making political hay out of anyone bringing the topic up (not common, and not nice at all).

But will they interview XXXXXX XXXXXX?

UPDATE: David Farrar says it was an accidental kiss. Roger... speak up old chap.

I won't be watching Prime tonight as I'm working (the show's at 8:30pm I believe).

UPDATE2: Peter Cresswell's post. Commenter Sus says:
Personally I don't give a toss as to the PM's sexuality. (She'd leave me cold either way). But what I find irritating is her blatant hypocrisy. She's not being honest about it for political reasons. There's still a lot of older Kiwis who vote Labour because Dad idolised Mickey, who might vote otherwise if her sexual preference wasn't to their liking.

I despise hypocrisy.
UPDATE3: Cathy Odgers:
I know plenty of obviously completely heterosexual New Zealand couples whose marriages are a complete sham for business or personal reasons and not based on any sort of love, usually it is for convenience or money or they can't be bothered getting a divorce or they don't want to live alone so they live like flatmates.

Posted by Antarctic Lemur | 9/22/2005 09:32:00 am

60 Comments:

Blogger Chris said...

Finally! I didn't see it on election night, I saw the Holmes ad on Tuesday and almost fell off the couch. This should get very interesting.
But, people who defend the "left" will argue that someone's sexuality is irrelevant, and I agree. What the point is, is possible deception. That I don't like. The woman is a fraud.

9/22/2005 09:56:00 am  
Blogger noizy said...

"What the point is, is possible deception."

I take it the rumours currently circulating about another 'happily married' party leader are probably not true then?

9/22/2005 10:08:00 am  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

Who?

9/22/2005 10:15:00 am  
Blogger Chris said...

Lay them out. Or at least give us a hint.

9/22/2005 10:20:00 am  
Blogger darren said...

Deception is the issue, truth, honesty.
All issues a certain party leader has been found wanting in from the various 'gates' she has been involved in.
Rumours about this Auckland-based MP have been circulating the media and gay communities for years.
One version concerns the MP having a relationship with another female Auckland MP, which WhaleOil reports has now broken off.
Another version, concerns her having a relationship with her press secretary.
The husband, of course, makes regular visits to Waiheke, apparantly. I had heard he used to spend much time in Christchurch for the same reason.
I don't care if New Zealand is ever lead by a gay man or lesbian. What counts are their policies and personal integrity.
I guess for a nation who had the world's first trans-sexual mayor and then MP, an openly gay leader would be yet another novelty.
Though at the end of the day, sexuality is just a tiny, though interesting facet, of their lives, and what they actually achieve in their job is what matters.

9/22/2005 10:20:00 am  
Blogger Lucyna said...

That photo just creeps me out.

9/22/2005 10:25:00 am  
Blogger noizy said...

"Who?"

Not the person Darren is talking about.

Someone who has struggled with monogamy in the past.

Just rumours, mind.

9/22/2005 10:29:00 am  
Blogger Tane said...

I know you all love throwing darts at Helen Clark, but do you really think you should be throwing this one?

Let's say you're right, that she is in a sham marriage, and she is lesbian. You say that the lesbianism isn't a problem, but the fact she has decieved the public for decades is. She has campaigned, and won votes, on the idea that she is a happily married, heterosexual woman.

OK, I'm with you so far, and there might be something to what you have to say. But who else falls into this trap? How many other MPs over the years and decades can be stuck with this same dart? Or even the very similar one of adultery? There they are, pretending that they're happy family men/women, lots of photo ops with the missus or hubby, when all this time they've been porking their secretary. How many 'happily married MPs' have been closet homosexuals or adulterers?

I don't know, and I really don't care. Attack Helen Clark if you want, but if you attack her on this front, you also attack Christ knows how many others for the crime of 'deception'. And they will all be as equally guilty as she might be.

In her defence (and the defence of those other MPs, left and right), being gay was a guaranteed way of never getting into politics until very recently. Adultery was also political poison. If people wanted to hide the fact that they shagged around, I can understand that, accept it and get over it. I'm sure you can do the same.

9/22/2005 10:32:00 am  
Blogger Chris said...

Well, when you get a video or picture of that person's husband/wife/partner kissing a person of the same sex on the lips (tongue is always good as well) then we might pay attention. In the meantime, don't forget to check out Holmes!

9/22/2005 10:32:00 am  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

No, my problem is with her making political hay out by claiming certain members of the opposition are lying when they say she is a lesbian and living in a sham marriage.

love throwing darts at Helen Clark

If you don't think Clark is the most ethically challenged Prime Minister we've had since at least Muldoon then thats you're problem, not ours. Don't try and make out we're the nasty ones for pointing out shes a populist liar.

9/22/2005 10:39:00 am  
Anonymous spam said...

Can someone actually tell us what the context of the Prime teaser is? Do they make reference to the image or not?

Reason being - could this all be a rumour generated to get publicity for Holmes' show?

9/22/2005 10:42:00 am  
Blogger Chris said...

I'm prepared to stake out Waiheke Island to get to the bottom of this.

9/22/2005 10:43:00 am  
Blogger Bernard Woolley said...

I don't mind if darts hit other politicians either, irrespective of what party they belong to. As long as politicians lie and deceive the public, thats why they they are rated as high as car salesmen. I'd quite happily have a good cleanout in the ranks, and if sham marriages and affairs is one way of doing it, then lets get on with it.

9/22/2005 10:55:00 am  
Blogger Tane said...

AL,

"If you don't think Clark is the most ethically challenged Prime Minister we've had since at least Muldoon then thats you're problem, not ours. Don't try and make out we're the nasty ones for pointing out shes a populist liar."

Calm down and take a deep breath. I wasn't having a go at you, and while my comment could be interpreted that way, it was not meant that way. My apologies for the confusion.

I have issues with Clark's honesty, and I didn't vote for her this time, that being one of the main reasons. Every PM has their weaknesses, and this is one of Clark's. I am saying that if you want to attack Clark on the basis of her deception about who she shags, then you have to accept that there are a whole raft of other MPs, left, right and sitting on the fence, open to the same opprobrium. God knows what will come out in the wash, and to be honest, I don't really give a long streak of monkey's piss. If Mallard or Key or Peters turn out to be serial adulterers, so fuckin' what?! Their policies are more important than their penises.

9/22/2005 10:57:00 am  
Blogger Bernard Woolley said...

Tane - entirely disagree. What you do in your private life echoes in your public life. If you're screwing people privately, you'll do it to the public as well. That is why politicians are one of the least trusted professions. I have no problem with open homsexuality or whatever. I do however hate it when politicians lie. If they've lied once, there is nothing stopping them from doing it again. And again.

9/22/2005 11:19:00 am  
Blogger Too Right said...

The issues are deception and ensuring people in high public office avoid conflicts of interest. If these allegations are true the Holmes interview in her home with her husband was a sham. What else is a sham about this woman?

Assuming it is an Auckland Cabinet Minister who is/was the PM's squeeze did she get the job(s) on grounds of competence and best person for the job? As we know she is useless the sniggers and smirks when she turns up at anything actually belittle the position and limit her roles and effectiveness.

Likewise for the PM's husband's little friend. He has got himself some important and lucrative sinecures....did he get those on his merits? Was he the best man for the job? Will his presence add to the Green's muscle at the table? Has a deal already been done with the Green's - are the negotiations a sham?

Interesting questions - nothing to do with sexuality - all to do with openness and honesty.

These are interesting questions. If the PM is happy for the debate about all the above, to be on the front page of the paper - I would be relaxed about it all.

9/22/2005 11:34:00 am  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

Who is the 'little friend'? Can we stop talking in code now?

9/22/2005 11:40:00 am  
Blogger noizy said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9/22/2005 12:00:00 pm  
Blogger noizy said...

Bernard Woolley said...: "If they've lied once, there is nothing stopping them from doing it again. And again."

So, of the current crop, which party leaders are (or have been) confirmed adulterers?

9/22/2005 12:01:00 pm  
Blogger Too Right said...

...a resource management and government relations consultant...

http://www.arta.co.nz/arc/index.cfm?9646A79D-BCD4-1A24-95A2-B47CE9564DEC
http://www.arta.co.nz/arc/xxarta/people/board.cfm

9/22/2005 12:02:00 pm  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

TR: Ic.

James: I think most people differentiate between an affair and a 20 year intentional sham obviously designed by a woman who considers her voters too dumb or ignorant to figure out the truth.

And what does it say about her character and supposed liberalism if she's willing to repress that side of her life for political power?

Of course it would be open season on all politicians if such topics suddenly became debateable by our very patsy media.

9/22/2005 12:20:00 pm  
Blogger Berend de Boer said...

If you are prepared to deceive the ones most close to you, don't you think that such a politician wouldn't deceive his voters? Adultary is of public interest. Deception is. Politics, although seldom achieved, is about honesty and truth.

Don't blame the messenger.

9/22/2005 12:26:00 pm  
Blogger Lucyna said...

What gets me about all this is that if it's true it's a sham marriage, then getting married shows her complete disrespect for what marriage is and an intention to give out a perception of herself that she knows is false because she thinks it's important.

It also allows her to counter the critics of some of her social policies because she is married.

9/22/2005 12:30:00 pm  
Blogger Chris said...

There's several people on that list, too right. Which one are we talking about. The guy Peter kissed on the ad had white hair and looked to be in his 50s/60s.

9/22/2005 12:38:00 pm  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

The other side of this is the political reality faced by the Labour Party: the elitist snobs who write labourite blogs might be Liberal, but I doubt many of Labour's other voters are. E.g. poorer polynesian Christians livig in South Auckland.

9/22/2005 12:39:00 pm  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

roger - look at the first link and search for the words Too Right quoted. He indeed has white hair and looks that age.

9/22/2005 12:40:00 pm  
Blogger Chris said...

I knew I should have been able to work that one out. Sorry...

9/22/2005 12:44:00 pm  
Blogger Bernard Woolley said...

Don Brash was rather open about his adultery when it came out wasn't he? I'd happily have my memory refreshed if thats wrong...

9/22/2005 12:45:00 pm  
Anonymous Ed Snack said...

I don't believe that the sexuality of the people involved is the issue. What is an issue, and possibly why Holmes is going to show this, is that the pre-election "family interviews" that were hosted by Holmes were (if the allegations are true) an absolute sham. Holmes was taken for a ride, and he may be acting in part out of feeling betrayed. It is like Bernard is saying, if you deceive this much in such matters, this is a big question mark over your ability to be, or at least to be perceived to be, honest in the rest of your dealings.

In that regard, what makes this legitimate is the deliberate deception foisted on NZ by the pre-election interviews. Yes, I know it would have been done (if all this is essentially correct mind you) in order not to lose votes, but more honest to avoid the whole issue. Keeping your sexuality private is at least to me an acceptable option, claiming to be one thing when actually another is a different matter. A sham marriage, well they are entitled to be married. Allegations of undue influence though do need to be followed up. I would think a heterosexual affair between two MPs would lead to repercussions and allegations of favouritism, so the same should hold for homosexual affairs.

If, for example, Don Brash had claimed he didn't commit adultery in his first marriage, it would be open season to show that he had and to cast doubts on his honesty at least in that regard. The difference is for those trying to bring that in, is that he has admitted it and agrees that it was not a good thing to do. So you may dislike him for his acts, but he isn't deceptive or hypocritical about it.

9/22/2005 12:55:00 pm  
Blogger Chris said...

Didn't Peter spend most of his time in Christchurch? Isn't that where he used to work.

Here's a list of all the people in the phone book with the suspect's name:

http://www.whitepages.co.nz/Pages/Search/Results/0,2623,a1281,00.html?Name=taylor%2C+gary&Loc=&Reg=&Search.x=24&Search.y=11

9/22/2005 12:59:00 pm  
Anonymous aile droite said...

Newstalk promo for tonight - "Stuff you didn't see on election night." Plus Donna Awatere Huatas children etc

The thing I have an issue with is, at fundamental core of her being and who she really is, she is prepared to lie and be deceitful. This brings into question her integrity.

According to Webster’s, integrity means.... ethical behavior, defined as “uncompromising adherence to a code of values such as sincerity, honesty, candor; avoidance of deception, expediency, shallowness.”

Essentially if someone has integrity then we consider them to be solid and fundamentally sound. However, if someone has questionable integrity then essentially we are saying they are not trustworthy. Her deceit over her sexuality and her shame marriage most definitely brings into question her integrity. Clearly she is very gifted in the art of deception and in fact goes out of her way in order to deceive. We can cite more incidents of this deceipt - like Doonegate and Speedgate ......

(Lucyna, Ed and Al - agree with your points. I think conservative christians and the Polynesian community would be extremely upset to learn she is a lesbian, as would all her supporters at the Pt Chev RSA. Ed - I don't think Holmes was taken for a ride. He is well connected enough to know the FULL story. He was probably just developing some ammo for her eventual downfall or coming out.)

The second point this raises is the extreme lengths this woman will go to assume and retain power. That in itself is disturbing and could also bring into question her lack of balance, psychological health and suitability to led.

Personally, however, I don't give a toss if she is a lesbian. But I do care about any politicians integrity and psychological soundness in terms of suitability to led & govern our country.

9/22/2005 01:31:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9/22/2005 01:33:00 pm  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

prior anonymous - take your innuendo elsewhere.

9/22/2005 01:47:00 pm  
Blogger Tane said...

Bernard,

"Tane - entirely disagree. What you do in your private life echoes in your public life."

I agree with your sentiment, I don't think it is practical, nor will it ever be. How many politicians and leaders throughout history have been adulterers? Roosevelt and Churchill spring to mind as two who couldn't keep it to themselves, and let's not get started on the French.... Politicians are human, and given the aphrodesiac qualtities of power it's not surprising that they take advantage of it. The best we can expect of them is good leadership in public, and what they do behind doors is their own concern. I'd rather a rutting mongrel like Churchill than some obsequious "family values" knob jockey (a name or two springs to mind here). In a perfect world I think you're right, but this world is not that.

Aile Droit,

"...This brings into question her integrity."

I thought her integrity was never in doubt, at least not on this website.......... ;P

9/22/2005 02:11:00 pm  
Anonymous aile droite said...

Nice to be amongst friends:)

Adultery is a whole other issue and something I'm not prepared to comment on.

9/22/2005 02:21:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The real issue as aile droite has noted is one of ethics. As anyone who has studied or taught ethics knows the behaviour patterns are the key.Those who deceive in one area will also deceive in other areas.They will excuse behaviour that the majority of society finds unethical to themselves and others on the most spurious of grounds.They tend to get trapped into a web of deceit often to cover up their unethical behaviour and this is usually the reason for their downfall.They are suspectible to both outright blackmail and also subtle pressures in order to cover up their unethical behaviour.In short they are not always able to make ethical choices and that is the ultimate danger
gd

9/22/2005 02:26:00 pm  
Blogger darren said...

I have just written a feature on corporate security for the October issue of MIS magazine.
It is essentially is an interview with celebrity private detective Julia Moore and her security expert.
Julia sees herself as a bit of a relationships expert and says human psychology counts for a lot in the workplace.
One of her comments is that if someone can cheat on someone they love, like their spouse, they can surely do it to their boss.
While she says this does not mean never employ adulterers, nontheless we should be careful with adulterers as emotional fraud might flow into corporate fraud.
Now, we have seen with Our Glorious Leader many many cases where her honesty and integrity has come under question from the various "xxxgate" scandals.
Thus, if there are lies and deceptions coming from the PM's job as leader of the country, then based on Julia Moore's analysis, there could well be similar frauds concerning the PM's private life.
If you can lie about your marriage, your sexuality, etc, then what else can you lie about?

9/22/2005 02:31:00 pm  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Tane, you mention Roosevelt and Churchill... yes, the dots. Ok, both were deceitful men whom I don't have much respect for (Roosevelt less than Churchill). If you were their ally and your interests were not their interests, well, you get screwed.

9/22/2005 02:38:00 pm  
Anonymous Alex said...

Adultery then not telling the public about it is an order of MAGNITUDE less serious than actually living a SHAM marriage for 20 YEARS. Whereas you can adulterate while still loving your wife, Clark would be LYING in EVERY appearance with, reference to, hell anything to do with, her husband. Not to mention this is the PM, thus her integrity is FAR, FAR more important than random backbenchers.

9/22/2005 02:53:00 pm  
Blogger Tane said...

Lucyna,

I think that in international politics, you get screwed in a heartbeat anyway. The Aussies are a classic example of this. We're as close as two countries can be, yet they've been rooting us the instant it suits them, since 1915 at least. John Howard and Paul Keating are, as far as I know, faithful husbands. I wouldn't trust them as far as I could spit them when it comes to caring for NZ's interests though. And if I were an Aussie, I don't know if I'd trust them much more than that either.

9/22/2005 02:56:00 pm  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

Can't see this being given wide coverage except as a footnote in biographies. Some of the comments on Farrar's blog already indicate how emotional people get about the idea such issues of credibility might be openly discussed. Apparently such topics are off-limits unless the person under discussion is Don Brash (self-admitted) or Richard Prebble (rumoured).

As for Churchill and Roosevelt - they had enough on their plates as it was without assuming responsibility for liberating Eastern Europe. The oppression visited on those countries was solely the fault of the Germans and Russians, surely. In Roosevelt's case, the United States political scene was much more isolationist until Pearl Harbour. And even then it was Hitler who declared war on the US, not the other way around.

9/22/2005 03:11:00 pm  
Blogger Lucyna said...

AL, that's not what I meant. They would tell their ally one thing and do the opposite. They needed their ally because of the vast amounts of intelligence they were gathering and the size of their armed forces, but they kept none of their promises.

Bush basically came out and said as much, which is why he has my utmost repect.

9/22/2005 03:20:00 pm  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

HAs anyone noticed that following Holmes tonight is Labour's theme programme. 'All Saints'

9/22/2005 03:24:00 pm  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

Lucyna - OK.

Adolf - I think All Saints would fairly describe the shocked commenters on DPF's blog, including "Ass Woman" herself.

Shocked, shocked I say!

9/22/2005 03:31:00 pm  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Tane, NZ hasn't exactly acted in a way that would cause John Howard to trust us. Trust goes both ways.

9/22/2005 03:32:00 pm  
Blogger Tane said...

Lucyna,

Agreed. I never thought we were perfect. Though we might come close if you put us next to a bunch of Aussies.........

9/22/2005 04:03:00 pm  
Blogger Psycho Milt said...

Honesty is anything but the best policy when trying to get votes off the stupid and malignant. A lesbian has a snowball's chance in hell of getting to be PM, so if Clark is one some kind of cover story was necessary to mislead the dumbass section of the NZ population. Entirely sensible, and kudos for the success in keeping it going.

9/22/2005 04:58:00 pm  
Blogger Bernard Woolley said...

Ah great timing! iTunes just popped up with Reel Big Fish - She Has A Girlfriend Now! How timely!

(I don't like boys, I told you that before)
She has a girlfriend now
She has a girlfriend now
She has a girlfriend now, she said
Guys don't do no more for me

You never loved me, like I wanted you to
(You never loved me noooo)
I said I loved you baby, what do you want me to do?
(Do you want me to do?)
She said she found someone who's gonna hold her hand
She said she found someone who's gonna understand
She don't need nobody to be her man
She don't need nobody to be her man

She has a girlfriend now
She has a girlfriend now
She has a girlfriend now, she said
Guys don't do no more for me

She said she found someone who's gonna hold her hand
She said she found someone who's gonna understand
She don't need nobody to be her man
She don't need nobody to be her man

She has a girlfriend now
She has a girlfriend now
She has a girlfriend now, she said
Guys don't do no more for me

I never thought it would end like this
Just because i've got no tits
I'll shave my legs, I'll wear a bra
I'll even cut my penis off for you...
(Aw, that's so sweet)
She has a girlfriend now.
She has a girlfriend now.
She has a girlfriend now.
She has a girlfriend now.


And that was followed by Kiss Him Goodbye. All entirely random. Nice :)

9/22/2005 05:38:00 pm  
Blogger tincanman said...

Lucyna: Who is "Ass woman"? I have my suspicions but am now tickled ...

9/22/2005 05:38:00 pm  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Tincanman, I don't know, I've never noticed her (him?). But then, I don't keep up with Rodney's blog as much now, which is probably why I'm not sure about the person I suspect.

You are going to make me go look now, well later, have to make dinner now ...

9/22/2005 05:46:00 pm  
Blogger Chris said...

Jim Anderton told Helen many moons ago that if she wanted to go far in politics/be Prime Minister, she would have to get married. She didn't want to, for reasons known only to her.
I have heard this "story" from more than one Member of Parliament.

And as for Farrar saying it looked like an accidental kiss, I suggest he get his eyes checked.

9/22/2005 06:46:00 pm  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

What a hopelessly inane programme it was.

9/22/2005 09:16:00 pm  
Blogger Chris said...

Anybody got any thoughts on the clip? Did it look accidental to anyone?

9/22/2005 09:24:00 pm  
Anonymous spam said...

God - I sat through 3/4's of an hour of complete crap for that?

The panel discussion was mildly amusing - I'm sure Tandoori Nachos said that he thought Helen would have an impossible job forming a stable govt. Hmm.

9/22/2005 09:36:00 pm  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

How do you know it was Mr Peter Davis? It went so fast I couldn't be sure.

9/22/2005 09:38:00 pm  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

ahahahahahaa thats quite funny really.

9/22/2005 09:39:00 pm  
Blogger Lucyna said...

You mean I watched most of the thing and missed it! When was it on? I must have walked out the room, bugger!

9/22/2005 09:42:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

champagne and a long lunch for the holmes promotional team at prime...eh..?..heh..heh..

(no...i didn't watch..i had some paint drying...)

phil(whoar.co.nz)

9/23/2005 09:56:00 am  
Blogger darren said...

Yes, Holmes was such a tease with his trailer.
Still, many of us enjoyed the gossip and speculation.
It wasn't all in vain.
I learnt the identity of Hubby's alleged partner throught the comments, which I did not know before.
Perhaps Holmes and others are monitoring this and other blogs.
Bit by bit, piece by piece, extra detail is coming out into the open.
Eventually, perhaps, enough maybe known for it all to be revealed.
It just needs a nod here and a wink there, a bit more detail is extracted or given by someone, and eventually everyone will put the jigsaw pieces together.

9/23/2005 10:34:00 am  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Ok, was it during the bit when the reporters were wandering around during election night? I did walk out of the room to do stuff, it was the worst of the entire programme. Paint drying would be about right, Phil.

9/23/2005 01:41:00 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home