We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.
Apparently he was not a nice prinicipal - at all, quite horrible in fact. Heard he quite liked some of the parents - well not the males. Think Kristin School is much better off to be rid of him.
Absolute BS! As a parent of ex-Kristin children for eight years (from 2005), we have nothing but good to say of Peter Clague. The students loved him and he was an inspirational leader. You don't know what you're talking about. I don't know him personally apart from being another parent, but do know many who did know both people involved - and I have heard NOTHING good said about the so-called victim.
Well there was stuff going on. Depends who you knew I guess. Sounds like you know a lot more than you are implying.
Word has it that it is not only this alleged wife beating that his new school Bromsgrove are concerned about, more significantly it is his support for the Kristin employee who harboured the school girl for two years, totally isolating her from all contact with her family. When the girl's family tried to hold placards outside the school, Clague supported their imprisonment. He's a great one for gagging orders and suppressing the truth, this Clague.
If they were that concerned they wouldn't have hired him.
As with every "he said - she said" story - the first victim is the truth. This woman waited - a nice legal length of time in which to cement her financial rights only to discover that deceptive strategy did not work for her. That combined with the timing of this latest private prosecution raises more than a red flag. I do however have a few questions for her. Why is she still a 10/90 shareholder in a company with Clague ? Why did the other businesses fail within 2 years that she was a director of ? Whats the real reason she joined the Family Violence Group ? Why has she claimed to be a University Lecturer when she is simply not a lecturer at Massey and never has been a lecturer there. She "was" a lecturers assistant in the psychology dept. This is far removed from the role of Lecturer. The PhD qualified staff that are lecturers there might have a problem with her claiming to be one and why has Massey University not come out and immediately straightened the story on this issue ? Exaggeration on her behalf in her role at Massey is one thing - although a sackable offence, but exaggerating about the evidence in a crime is another. Unfortunately neither side of this tale is able to be proven - which is precisely why the Police had no option to drop it. As should happen in every case where clear malice and motive like this can be established. I look forward to the private prosecution being a big nothing and this woman finally getting some closure to a part of her life that she is unable to reconcile with her actions. This would then allow a man that seems to be the object of her obsession to be able to go to the UK and escape this insane woman. The one saving grace Mr Clague is no doubt rejoicing to this very day - that he did not have a child with this pathetic individual. You lucky, lucky bastard. No, I do not know either of them, nor the school, nor Massey University. Everything I mention can be found online.
Based on what I have previously read on this subject it would appear that this ex-wife is intent on causing as much public humiliation as possible for this man. The police investigated her initial complaint and decided not to lay charges. They gave him the benefit of the doubt and decided that the incident was a one-off and accidental, which resulted in a warning being given only. This clearly is not satisfactory to the ex-wife so she is now embarking on a private prosecution (obsessed?). I don't believe it is fair to say that Peter Clague has a history of domestic assault as he was not charged or found guilty of this. We have recently seen how unsubstantiated accusations can be made by those with an agenda to cause maximum damage to a person's reputation (eg. Judith Collins). Given the police's finding the only thing Peter Clague is guilty of is having an affair and this may account for the ex-wife's behaviour. This whole situation reeks of a jilted ex-wife not being able to let go and this may be why he has to take the drastic action of leaving the country.
The importance obviously attached by Ms Jackman to ensuring that the story (i.e. that she has taken out a private prosecution) was made public before any name suppression could be obtained speaks volumes. It would appear that the main (sole?) objective of her actions is to create maximum negative publicity and damage to Mr Clague.I suspect that she already realises that the outcome of the hearing is likely to be the same as the police investigation (inconclusive), but of course it does give her the opportunity to create a bit more humiliation. But only with a media mouthpiece.If her motive were genuinely to seek some sort of personal justice for herself through the courts for what was a private incident, why would it be so important for her have as much publicity as possible about it in the media?
I don't know the story here or even if this is true ( whether he did assault her or just her allegations ) however I've had business dealings with this man and found him honest friendly and a great person to deal with . I'm shocked to read this about him . Still there are plenty of people that we all come across on a day to day basis that we think are fine upstanding citizens . She does seem like she's being vindictive here though . Still time will tell .
Give him Maurice's number quick. What's the difference between this guy and Maurice's mate? You cheerlead for one abuse enabler but hang others. Hypocrite much Cam?Remember it's not ok. Ever. By hanging one but excusing another you show your supposed concern for domestic abuse is all for show. Who would categorise if abuse of women and children is acceptable or not along the lines of political flavour? You do. The height of hypocrisyA moral compass should be guided by right or wrong. Not left or right leaning political ideology.
The fact that National has a wife beater is mentioned on this site on a regular basis, it's not like it's been kept a secret.
I have not cheer lead for any abuse enabler, in fact I have campaigned for National's senior wife beater to be rinsed.
You come here accusing me of hypocrisy, well perhaps you'd like to take a hike.
"I have not cheer lead for any abuse enabler, in fact I have campaigned for National's senior wife beater to be rinsed."
Well done. So I ask again. What is the difference between the above and the school principal, and Maurice's benefactor?It's still abuse Cam. And be honest your championing the senior Nat leaders case has more to do with the personal agenda, not the moral.So enough of the faux outrage, everyone sees through it.Unfortunately you base your moral compass along personal agendas rather than what's right, and what's wrong. Again, and I make no apologies, the height of hypocrisy.
The difference is that Maurice doesn't beat his wife. I'm sure we all know, have worked with and sometimes even champion people who have made mistakes int their life, but we normally don't expect to be shat on because other people made mistakes.
I'm not sure that we know that Mr Clague "beats his wife" either Pete, to be fair. I guess the court will decide that.
Fair call. The beating reference was because we call these people "wife beaters", but you are absolutely correct. He is reported as having grabbed her by the throat and thrown her onto the stairs. No reference to beating.
So I should have said "Maurice doesn't strangle his wife and throws her onto the stairs either", to be fair.
Well we don't know that he did that either, it was "reported" (alleged really) by the person that is trying to bring the prosecution against him. Hopefully the court might be able to find out if it happened or not.
Oh, don't be pedantic. Apart from the fact that we do know. Whaleoil has direct knowledge in this case.
Sorry. I didn't realise that you were there when the incident supposedly took place.
Whaleoil has a direct witness that was there when it did take place. What are your credentials beyond having a contrary opinion.
How odd then that person chose not to support the Police claim as a witness - thus preventing this going to court. Unless that person is Jackman in which case it's unprovable, meaning you going on about them is pointless. She can't be a witness to her own assault. She was either assaulted or she was not.
So the debate is that you can't be a witness to your own assault. That's just semantics now.
Look I get the fact that people have taken sides, but going by the knights in white armour on behalf of the man being charged, breaking her tail bone was just one of these things that happens by itself then?
Sorry but this is not a story about "wife-beaters", it's about a vindictive woman trying to damage someone, which includes feeding stories to the media. OK, there's to be a court hearing (instigated privately by Ms Jackman), but why would you engage a public relations consultant and issue statements to the press about this fact unless your motive was revenge and causing maximum public damage? I'm pretty close to the story, so I know the full picture, not what the papers report. I'm surprised that the article above fell for the MSM spin and the manipulation that is going on.
So you know Peter Clague? How do you know Ms Jackman (is she his second wife) is vindictive? Would be interesting if any of the Kristin School staff (and parents) start speaking about their experiences with this principal. I don't think we have heard the full story. I heard stuff about this guy a few years ago. Wasn't nice.
Sounds like you're close to the principal, not the story. You wouldn't be the school's board chair by any chance?
I know both individuals involved, have done for many years and have no ties with the school's management. Are you close to Ms Jackman by any chance?
Not school management, chairs role is governance...
I have no ties with the school at all. You don't seem to have answered my question about your links to Ms Jackman. I couldn't help but notice that your Whaleoil account was set up just this morning and solely to post your comments on this story. Plus you appear to have up-voted all comments in her favour in this thread. Just saying..
Or are you the Board chairs husband, who might describe himself as a "corporate refugee" see link: http://laudafinem.com/2011/...
As I said I have no ties with the school at all, not sure what you don't understand about that.Therefore I have no interest in any spat or dirt you want to spread about the Board of the school and their families.You do seem to know a lot about them though, and clearly hold a grudge of some sort.You still haven't answered my question about your association with Ms Jackman. Maybe you ARE her, or a close friend. So what, its OK to come on here and make your comments. No need to pretend you don't have a vested interest.
Worth reading his clap-trap on the Bromsgrove web-page. Hypocrite? Yes!