Uffindell welcomed back by National

[Wainuiguy]

Well we will never know will we?  Strange the Bully was the one calling for an independent enquiry into not only his, but the other Labour MPs both accused by others and him of bullying.  

But then when you make the biggest Bully the speaker what do you expect?

Why don't you FO to where people appreciate shitposters, troll?

Nah I think I will stay just to piss you off.  

But my statement stands.  National did the enquiry.  OK they didn't release it and were clear they werent going to from the start.  But Labour didn't bother at all with any enquiry into CURRENT claims of bullying - something that occured last year not 22 years ago.  They were the ones who claimed they wanted to be "the most transparent government ever" and then proceeded to be anything but.

---

I love the twisting of words in these situations

Dew KC's independent inquiry into the incident "did not substantiate any allegations of bullying outside of Sam's time at King's College", party president Sylvia Wood said on Monday.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/...se-it.html

National said the report found Uffindell "did not engage" in the behaviour his former flatmate detailed on RNZ last month - which prompted the inquiry.
That included dismissing her claims he bashed on her door, yelled obscenities and smashed up the flat through violent behaviour.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/...se-it.html

But the woman and her father stand firmly by her account of what happened at the flat and are deeply unhappy Uffindell's word was taken over hers.

She had originally said she fled to her friend's house but later said she ran to the library where she called her father, who put her up in a motel for the night.

The woman gave a written statement during the inquiry but did not participate further, believing it to be a political snow job - bought and paid for by the National Party.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/...se-it.html

Let's just get something straight - her father didn't see anything.  He didn't witness the event he is relying on what his daughter said - that is called hearsay.  
The fact that the daughter said she first went to the library then to a friend's house shows that 19 years later even she can't remember exactly what occured.  That doent make her a liar - it just shows one of the reasons why eyewitnesses are not often reliable.  People remember differently the same events and in some cases insert things they believe happened.  That situation gets worse as the time between the event and the retelling gets longer.