Franks in a petulant mood
I don’t get Stephen Franks. His candidacy started in a somewhat odd fashion and has continued to bemuse. I don’t agree with Franks but I understand he’s a smart lawyer, that he’s a rationalist (of the economic variety) and that he’s reputed to be logical and thorough.
I’ve blogged about Franks attempt to rebrand himself as something other than the ultra-dry conservative and a few weeks ago he was clearly trying to present himself as a real kiwi-joker with his stupidly sexist humour. Initially, it appeared Franks realised his error and offered his apologies to anyone offended - a sensible approach I thought - however he’s now petulently declaiming the so-called wowsers and Labour stooges who dare to criticise him.
My post last weekend of the Danish Road Safety Council’s traffic safety spoof ran into the same culture, abetted by abysmal journalistic standards. With pursed lips the Herald reported ” a storm” erupting over the posting. The storm was one email from a Labour stooge purporting to be from a National voter but not verified when the journalist concerned called me. In all my subsequent email traffic I had only encouragement.
A Labour stooge - how’d we arrive at that conclusion? What evidence does Franks adduce to support his claim? Let’s see if we can follow this compelling logic.
- (A) a named individual, Adam Prouse (Whitepages reveals several records of people who could be Adam Prouse), claiming to be a National Party member, criticises Franks sexist humour
- (B) some people are critical of Franks at kiwiblog
- (C) people critical of Franks and other Nats who post on kiwiblog are often Labour stooges
A perfect example of Logic 101 and Lewis Carroll’s soriteses:
- Some A are B
- Some B are C
- Therefore A is C
Of course this does not cohere with Carroll’s laws, nor is it remotely logical or credible. It is an attempt by Franks to avoid responsibility for his school-boy humour. As the smart lawyer we understand Franks to be, he could verify his claim by simply asking Party HQ if they have a record of an Adam Prouse.
Tags: flapping and wailing, franks
May 7, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Mardy, I’d bet good money Franks actually knows who this person is. Franks is a lawyer and probably not prone to putting labels on people he can’t back up. That is (possibly) libelous, after all, and as a political candidate he is a target for litigation, so I’d expect him to be careful on this.
Franks and National has been in email contact with the complainant. He could have just asked. Franks moves in political circles. Only takes one person to know who Mr Prouse is. I doubt Franks is relying on the white pages.
But the main point is that of course the criticism of Franks is politically motivated. All the insults thrown at him by this blog and the Standard would not have been thrown at a Labour candidate. Please don’t be so disingenuous as to suggest that isn’t true.
May 7, 2008 at 2:51 pm
My motives are clear, I’ve made no suggestion otherwise. If Robertson had, however, made a stupid sexist gag like Franks did, particularly if he was otherwise engaged in moralistic campaigns, I’d have no problem with him being criticised - none at all - I don’t defend idiocy.
Franks makes an allegation against members of the Labour party and should simply put up or shut up. He tries shonky logic to make it out - if he knows something, he should say so.
He should also decide whether (a) he is or isn’t a lad and (b) is or isn’t apologetic for his purile humour.
May 7, 2008 at 3:36 pm
As far as I have heard Mardy, the only people who thought the video is not funny are on this blog, the Standard, and Roger Nome at KB. All known Labour stooges. Oh and Adam Prouse.
How do you know Franks’ logic is shonky? He hasn’t actually explained how he knows Mr Prouse is Labour. So what, you feel free to just invent his reasoning and then criticise him for it?
May 7, 2008 at 3:41 pm
mattb02:
Your blind faith is touching. How much money is “good money”? Can I be the first to take it off you? Note that Franks doesn’t say that he has verified that Adam Prouse is a “Labour stooge”. I’m inclined to think that Frank’s assertion has about as much relationship with the truth as the following laughable statement in the same blog:
“Since the Electoral Finance Act my freedom of speech rests on journalist shoulders. I can’t speak directly by mail, or print media to voters in my electorate.”
May 7, 2008 at 3:42 pm
PS Is Wellington Central “my electorate”?
May 7, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Blind faith in what, Jafapete?
Well I can think of a couple of reasons why he wouldn’t make it up. One, if Mr Prouse can pull out a National membership card it will seriously embarrass Franks and harm his candidacy. Second, if it is false then he exposes himself to a defamation proceeding, and even if Prouse isn’t interested in funding litigation it only takes one Labour supporter who is.
Franks’ quote is correct, FWIW. I understand as a challenger he is allowed to spend $20,000 on his campaign the whole year. A single mailout to his electorate would consume most of that, as would only a few half page ads in the Dom Post. Mainstream media, if he can get their attention, is free and not caught by the act, hence the reference to journalists shoulders.
May 7, 2008 at 3:59 pm
What would be the grounds for defamation? Being called a Labour stooge? Are you serious?
Blind faith in Franks and all things right-wing.
May 7, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Defamation law is grey, it only needs enough merit to get a hearing. It won’t happen before the election and in the meantime it takes Franks away from campaigning and makes him look bad. Calling somebody a ‘bastard’ is certainly defamatory in some situations, its not obvious ’stooge’ isn’t.
It’s not blind faith. I’ve explained reasons why I doubt Franks invent the label. Maybe I’m wrong. It’s not blind faith though.
May 7, 2008 at 4:08 pm
I addressed this very point in my post matt - if he has information about Prouse he should declare it. Instead he cheaply smears his critics using a faulty syllogism - pretty poor for a bloke who’ll no doubt campaign on his credentials as a notable lawyer.
May 7, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Well is it a cheap smear if he’s right Mardy?
May 7, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Anyway, you could at least answer the question Mardy: how do you know Franks’ logic is shonky? Answer: you don’t. You couldn’t.
Maybe Franks should declare how he knows. But the facts are he hasn’t told you how he knows, and you’ve now accused him of shonky reasoning and smearing his critics. Which are both wrong if Franks is right.
May 7, 2008 at 4:39 pm
mattb02:
Sorry to get all Robinsod on you, but I couldn’t help it. Do you fuck pigs?
May 7, 2008 at 4:46 pm
On the basis of what he’s written; yes. If, however, he had conclusive knowledge the Prouse is a Labour activist, no. Until he produces this however, I think my description is fair.
I do know his logic as it appears on his blog is shonky - again, if he knows something more, he’s ommitted it from his argument. It’s like when you know the answer to a maths problem but don’t show your working making it impossible to know if you arrived at the answer by deduction of divination.
rogernome said:
Cut it out - this is a reasonable discussion.
May 7, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Seemed appropriate to me.
http://newzblog.wordpress.com/2008/01/21/pig-fucking/
May 7, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Roger, I don’t want to over-state my objection and matt’s more than capable of responding himself, but I actually think this discussion could continue without distraction and although your piece at newzblog is interesting, I’m not certain it’s relevant.
May 7, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Mardy - it’s not perfectly analogous.
The point it underlines is that it’s not fair or rational to throw accusations around about people on the basis that you may possibly be right.
Franks hasn’t shown us that he’s done any different from this. If he didn’t want us to think he was smearing, as you say he should have revealed the reasons for his calling that person a “labour party stooge”. Until he does it should be treated as a smear.
May 7, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Roger is asking if I am Insolent Prick, which is a compliment (to me). I’m not.
May 7, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Franks is a lawyer and probably not prone to putting labels on people he can’t back up.
Matt you retard - you’re talking about the Stephen Franks who accused the police of political corruption on Kb.
May 7, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Oh wait, no he’s not. I see the point.
Touche, Roger.
May 7, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Roger, I see the point you’re trying to make and it’s not unreasonable however your approach might have obscured it a little.
Matt, I don’t think that being a lawyer means an individual is always unlikely to make stupid statements.
Franks either knows the identity of Prouse or he doesn’t. If he does, his post is simply stupid. If he doesn’t, his post is an attempt to avoid responsibility for his comments by smearing others.
May 7, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Let’s be generous and call it 1-1 on the smear count. One for Franks who called Mr Prouse a stooge without explaining how he knows this, and one for Mardy for questioning Franks’ logic without seeing it, and for accusing him of a smear without checking waiting to know if its true.
When you think about it, Mardy and Franks are “guilty” of about the same thing. Both are putting negative labels on other people. The only difference is that Franks has not put forward his evidence, and Mardy doesn’t have any.
May 7, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Rubbish.
1. I’ve clearly shown where his logic, as it is presented, is flawed. It’s Logic 101 and he’s failed it.
2. You’ve neglected to understand a basic tenant of law that he who asserts must prove (or the assumption is always in the negative, semper praesumitur pro negante). Franks claims Prouse isn’t who he is reported to be, he must now prove it.
May 7, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Whatever Adam Prouse’s political affiliations, the question remains:
Was Stephen Franks linking to the video a good idea?
He’s a hard right, socially conservative experienced politician campaigning for a right wing party trying to brand itself as “mainstream” and standing in a notoriously socially liberal electorate.
It hardly matters who caught him making an ass of himself, or how it got in the media. The point is that, completely predictably, it did.
Perhaps a better question: what was he thinking?
May 7, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Thanks, Anita, for reminding us what the essential issue is. It appears that, as I pursued Franks on his integrity, I’d lost sight of his idiocy.
You ask what was he thinking, I imagine he was thinking “maybe being a bit of a bloke will help reposition me away from my ultra-conservative links… perhaps if I talk about T&A, they’ll forget that I was a member of ACT”
May 8, 2008 at 1:54 pm
I imagine he was thinking “maybe being a bit of a bloke will help reposition me away from my ultra-conservative links… perhaps if I talk about T&A, they’ll forget that I was a member of ACT”
I’m sorry, isn’t this the sort of speculation you’ve just finished chewing out Franks for?
May 8, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Fair cop.
May 8, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Are you in Wellington, by any chance Mardy?
May 8, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Not for the next little while, you planning on dropping by?
May 8, 2008 at 6:28 pm
the writer here of this article is just such a pc person.
he dont allow sex joke.
he sad.
every night i go to be i still dream of heather roy in green knickers with lace on
i feel no shame at all.
May 8, 2008 at 6:31 pm
this would be borderline-offensive if it weren’t so funny (in a sorta-sad way)
May 8, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Be good to have a beer. just a thought
May 8, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Definitely another time, yes.
May 9, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Isn’t Adam Prouse the fellow who played Darth Vader’s body in the original Star Wars trilogy?
May 9, 2008 at 9:37 pm
I think his name was David Prouse, robynekenealy. He also played the spectacled bloke who looked after the disabled man in ‘A Clockwork Orange’…
This could turn into an interesting game… What other National Party members have names that are similar to, but not exactly the same as, someone who’s been in Star Wars? Or A Clockwork Orange?
May 10, 2008 at 12:30 pm
imcheezy, having checked them all for both movies, the only exact match I can find is Neil Wilson, a Prison Check-in Officer in A Clockwork Orange.
There are plenty of matches for surname only!
May 25, 2008 at 9:27 pm
too intellectual for yourself liittle kwiblob blog
always a little impersonation of a better person,
May 26, 2008 at 7:13 pm
yeah that’s it peter - you’ve found us out.
May 27, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Does anyone know whether or not Franks did know the identity of the complainant?
May 27, 2008 at 10:45 pm
He claims to but he’s not confirmed. I’d be surprised if someone in head office didn’t immediately check the membership which makes me think that if he wasn’t a member, as he claimed, they’d have immediately advised the media - that they didn’t suggests he is in which case Franks is blowing hot air.
May 28, 2008 at 9:25 am
Yeah, that’s why I asked.
May 28, 2008 at 12:08 pm
It’s bloody odd tactic but… and an odd turnabout. First he was apologetic, smart move I thought, now petulant… but if his petulence was anything of substance, you’d expect him to out the “labour stooge”. For a smart lawyer, he appears to not think things through to the logical conclusion…