The Cloak and Dagger of Parliamentary Privilege
Winston Peters is at it again (see also David Slack). What possible grounds could there be for publicising Peter and Coral Shaw's experience with Edwards (David McNee's killer)? The
(a) jump to the conclusion that Peter Shaw was Edwards client in yet another assignation that went wrong
(b) applaud (and vote for) Winston as a fearless exposer of faggotry in high places.
The rest of us may very well conclude that Winston is the sort of weasel that gives vermin a bad name - but we already knew that anyway.
Winston may believe he is following in his Mentor's footsteps but Colin Moyle was a political opponent and current front-bench MP when Muldoon outed him - Peter Shaw is an innocent bystander. And few historians would call that Rob's finest moment.
Winston has attempted to give his cynical malice a gloss of "legitimate public interest" by alleging a cover-up - that someone leaned on the police to drop the case. Too make such an allegation without any evidence to back it up is fatuous nonsense even by Winston's standards.
I do not know and do not wish to know why Coral and Peter Shaw chose not to press (or continue) charges in this case but it is their right to do so. It is also normal police practice (although not legally mandatory) to drop a case if the victim does not wish to pursue it. There is simply no basis for alleging anything improper or unusual in the police dropping this case. It is a flimsy attempt to disguise the gratuitous character assassination by innuendo of a private individual.
Unfortunately Peters knows all too well that "you can fool some of the people all of the time" but OTOH even weasels despise weasels who deny their essential weaselness.