A few facts unpin a lot of spin

Written By: - Date published: 1:06 am, June 10th, 2009 - 108 comments
Categories: corruption, john key, phil goff, richard worth, sexism - Tags:

The Tories are throwing all the muck they can at Goff. Trying to get him to back off on the Worth thing. Their latest is that Labour is spinning out this presentation of texts to Key to drag the issue out.

Thought I would take a leaf out of Eddie’s book and do a timeline. Clear it up for the easily confused:

Last Wednesday: Key mentions he had heard previous rumours about Worth “making a nuisance of himself towards women”. Goff confirms he took a private complaint to Key on behalf of a party member (don’t know where everyone’s getting ‘activist’ from, plenty of inactive Labour members, too many).

– Point 1: Key made it public.

Last Thursday: Key starts to insinuate the woman is lying. Insists she go public. No reason except he’s a dork. Key is brow-beaten by Wilson into having a meeting with the woman where she can give her side of the story and provide evidence.

Last Friday: Key again agrees to a meeting on RadSoc. Goff agrees to set it up. Goff sets it up. Key’s advisers manage to get the radio uplink working and call him off. Set a new standard – evidence must be shown to Eagleson, who will decide if a meeting with Key follows. Goff says that worst texts were deleted and telephone calls not recorded.

– Point 2: Goff and the women were keen to meet, provide evidence. Key shifted the goal posts.

Monday/Tuesday: Goff and women try to recover deleted texts from Vodafone.

– Point 3: Goff and the woman are still aiming for the meeting with Key but they fear Eagleson will veto it unless the material evidence speaks for itself. There is no delaying here from Goff and the woman, they were keen on the meeting on Friday and they want it now. It’s Key who’s running. (it’s also Key who has been found out lying about the other details of the phone call he had with Goff when this issue was first raised)

It’s not Goff and the woman dragging this out (if anyone is, it’s Key by not giving a straight answer on why he fired Worth). They just want the meeting done but they aren’t prepared for Key to back out on his word and then have his chief of staff fob them off. That amounts to calling the woman a liar. Goff offered to represent this woman’s interests. He is living up to his responsibilities.

I’m no Goff acolyte, far from it, but he has acted honourably here. Indeed, his candor and honesty have always been his trademarks. Bit of a contrast to that other dude.

108 comments on “A few facts unpin a lot of spin ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. tsmithfield 1
    10 June 2009 at 7:07 am

    Yeah. So Goff has had no part in this:

    1. He has been involved with this situation since November. He must have been aware that the contact between Worth and the complainant stopped in February. Yet, according to Key (not disputed by Goff) Goff had told him that the reason for his call was that the complainant wanted the attention to stop. Of course, it had stopped several months earlier. Once Key had read the complainants statement where this was disclosed, don’t you think it would make him a teenie weenie bit suspicious, especially when the complainant is a member of the Labour Party.

    2. First there were e-mails. Then there were texts. Then there were texts, but the juicy ones had been deleted.

    3. Goff has decided to start arguing this whole thing in public trying to score political points. This makes a complete farce of his previous rational of not wanting to bring the complainant into public attention. All it takes now is for the news media to get a wheeze of who the complainant is and she will be headline news. Thanks Phil.

    4. The complainant, in her statement, offered to 1. put up the evidence. 2. meet with Key. All Key is asking for is for her to do exactly what she has offered. Why doesn’t she just get on and do it?

    • Nick 1.1
      10 June 2009 at 7:34 am

      In case tsmithfield has not been listening the woman wants to meet Key, he is the problem. Neither left or right has a monopoly on sleaze etc and it does not look pretty trying too push or defend such allegations based on party allegiance.

    • exbrethren 1.2
      10 June 2009 at 7:53 am

      tsmithfield claimed to believe Key’s version because he felt Goff hadn’t been truthful about the timing of the phone call, as Key had said he was on a plane.

      Now that that has been shown to be a direct lie by Key, ts changes the spin. Hopeless.

      Key is going to have to stop lying to the media, as well as the plane lie he told Mary Wilson he’d be available to meet the women.

    • Zaphod Beeblebrox 1.3
      10 June 2009 at 2:08 pm

      Why did Key bring her up in the first place? He was never asked to amke it public?

  2. Anita 2
    10 June 2009 at 8:13 am

    If I were investigating, in good faith, a case of sexual harassment which included txts I would make sure the victim only had to show the txts to the minimum number of people possible. If they wanted to show them to more that’s fine, but many people who have been harassed are deeply ashamed of what occurred, and being respectful of that is important.

    To translate this, I think it is unreasonable for Key to require her to show the txts to Eagleson: it’s an unnecessary step which opens her up to more unnecessary embarrassment. If Key wants her to commit somehow to bringing the txts along, fine; but insisting a harassment victim accept additional intrusion and embarrassment is unreasonable, and shows Key just doesn’t understand the dynamics of sexual harassment.

  3. Pascal's bookie 3
    10 June 2009 at 8:36 am

    How Paul Litterick rolls is awesome, eleventy-one !!1

  4. Kevin Welsh 4
    10 June 2009 at 9:00 am

    I hope this gets drawn out longer, if only to see what bullshit ts comes up with next.

  5. tsmithfield 5
    10 June 2009 at 9:04 am

    exbretheren:
    Now that that has been shown to be a direct lie by Key, ts changes the spin

    The worst Key can be accused of here is a memory lapse and shooting from the lip when he would have been better advised to go back and check the facts. On the other hand, Goff has told the PM that the reason for the call was for the attention to stop, when in fact, he would, by his own admission, have clearly known that the unwanted attention had ceased months earlier. Remember, Key has reported this version of what Goff had told him a number of times, and I have not seen any evidence of Goff denying it. If anyone can point to a record of Goff denying Keys version of events, then point me to the link. Unless anyone can point to this evidence, then it seems clear that Goff has behaved in a calculated and deliberately deceptive manner.

    Anita:
    To translate this, I think it is unreasonable for Key to require her to show the txts to Eagleson: it’s an unnecessary step which opens her up to more unnecessary embarrassment

    It sounds like the sexually explicit txts have been deleted. So, the problems you refer to don’t seem to be a problem. She should just get on with it and put the texts forward. There is a due process to go through with verifying where the texts have come from etc. Also, it is only fair that Key has a look at the texts before the meeting so he can ask any questions that arise. I don’t see the problem.

    • Anita 5.1
      10 June 2009 at 10:55 am

      tsmithfield,

      You don’t get to decide what she is or isn’t (or should or shouldn’t be) embarassed about – she does.

      I’m talking about this being handled as a case of sexual harassment, not how to handle it as a politically expedient media circus. Somewhere in all of this is a woman who has been distressed and upset by someone’s behaviour toward her. The process for discussing this, and the discussion about the process needs to remember this is, at heart, a sexual harassment case and that we need to address that with sensitivity and care.

      • Maynard J 5.1.1
        10 June 2009 at 1:19 pm

        Didn’t you know – these days when you go to counselling you have to tell the receptionist first, so the counsellor knows ‘what to talk to you about’, and to decide whether to let you in, in the first place. JK is just following Best Practice.

    • exbrethren 5.2
      10 June 2009 at 5:49 pm

      Key categorically denied Goff’s note was true saying that he was on a plane at the time. This wasn’t a lapse it was a deliberate attempt to discredit Goff’s story so I’d call that a lie.

      It reminds me of nothing more than “What part of no don’t you understand?”

  6. Pascal's bookie 6
    10 June 2009 at 9:24 am

    “The worst Key can be accused of here is a memory lapse and shooting from the lip when he would have been better advised to go back and check the facts.”

    hahaha.

    That’s the most charitable interpretation not the worst. It amounts to a claim that Key couldn’t really remember, didn’t really care about the truth, needed to discredit Goff’s account, remembered he was on the way from the airport and grasped at that as a straw. Not bothering to check his own phone logs. So he’s a bullshitting idiot, rather than a flat out liar.

    • tsmithfield 6.1
      10 June 2009 at 9:27 am

      So, on that basis, what does that make Goff, according to the analysis I have given.

      • Pascal's bookie 6.1.1
        10 June 2009 at 9:37 am

        Who gives a fuck about your big pile of stupid? Everyone knows you’re a dishonest hack. It’s been shown over and over and over and over again. You”ve got no cred left ts.

        The well; she is dry.
        The horse; it has bolted.
        The 5lb bag; you have stuffed it with 10lbs of stupid.

        But you carry on, like Kevin says, show us your stuff.

        • Andrew 6.1.1.1
          10 June 2009 at 9:45 am

          yea that’s right … instead of answering the question you go straight on the offencive and attack the person.

          typical of this site. Ohhhhh, can’t answer question … must attack wingnut … where is felix, it’s about time him and rOb showed up to throw some insults and dodge the questions as well?

          seriously, every day … day in day out it’s the same old crap. im supprised ts actually comments here any more.

          ts, some advice, just ignore them and eventually they will get bored of beating each other off and give up.

          • Pascal's bookie 6.1.1.1.1
            10 June 2009 at 9:50 am

            I spent most of a day arguing rationally with this idiot. He has openly stated that he is only writing what he does to ‘provide balance’ rather than get at the truth. His arguments and justifications change back and forth with the the winds. My claim that he is dishonest and stupid are conclusions drawn from that.

            I have no idea who you are, and yet you jump in to attack me.

            Whatever.

        • tsmithfield 6.1.1.2
          10 June 2009 at 9:48 am

          So this is what you resort to when you can’t make a point? A gush of empty ad hominems? I actually thought better of you. Maybe I was mistaken.

      • forgetaboutthelastone 6.1.2
        10 June 2009 at 9:39 am

        “what does that make Goff?”

        holier than the pope – don’t you think so smithfeild?

        • tsmithfield 6.1.2.1
          10 June 2009 at 9:54 am

          Yeh. The Pope wouldn’t be worthy to clean Goffs shoes.

          • forgetaboutthelastone 6.1.2.1.1
            10 June 2009 at 10:47 am

            In that case, and if i were you, I would be questioning why goff had dirty shoes in the first place.

            Something smells quite f*ckn fishy here.

  7. Pat 7
    10 June 2009 at 9:47 am

    Goff has released the offending texts;

    THE TEXTS

    * Do you want to come swimming?

    * How you getting on with the Goa purchase?

    * Does that possibly mean you might be back [in India] in mid January with a discreet ITG group?

    * You are my favourite new best friend to use a Facebook expression. RWW

    * I don’t need anything. Perhaps a tie from the Indian School of Business at Gachibowli but that might be impossible. RWW XX

    Um…is that the worst he has got?

    • tsmithfield 7.1
      10 June 2009 at 9:50 am

      Yeh. Especially the last one.

      “I don’t need anything…”

      Seems to imply a previous text from her going the other way:

      “Anything I can get for you, hun….”

      So much for much for all the BS about not wanting to hand the txts forward because of the embarassment to the woman etc. Now they have been released to the whole nation. What a joke.

      • Pascal's bookie 7.1.1
        10 June 2009 at 10:13 am

        There we go again, making up things to provide fake ‘balance’.

        The text she sent that this one is the reply to, was asking if the see through clothes he was asking her to buy were for him.

    • merlin 7.2
      10 June 2009 at 10:04 am

      They always said the texts weren’t the worst, that was in the phone calls.

      So far, Goff and the wman are proven to be telling the truth again.

      Dodgy texts from Worth? – tick

      Phone call between Goff and Key at time Goff said? – tick

      Predictably, the Right’s fall-back position is ‘the texses aren’t so bad!’ Except these aren’t texts between friends. These are texts sent by a married man to a married woman whom he hardly knew, that clearly are pressuring her for an intimate relationship.

      • Pat 7.2.1
        10 June 2009 at 10:12 am

        “Dodgy texts from Worth? – tick”

        “…that clearly are pressuring her for an intimate relationship.”

        Specifically, which texts lead you to that conclusion? Those texts are hardly a smoking gun. Instead they look more like Goff blowing smoke out of his arse.

  8. Pat 8
    10 June 2009 at 9:51 am

    Surely those texts don’t qualify for a private meeting with the PM.

    • Pascal's bookie 8.1
      10 June 2009 at 10:15 am

      ts was saying the other day that the swimmig one would be enough. Presumably he now thinks the meeting should go ahead.

      • tsmithfield 8.1.1
        10 June 2009 at 10:18 am

        If the texts are released through the proper channels then the meeting definitely should go ahead. Since Goff has now gone public with these, there is precisely no reason why he shouldn’t go through the specified channels now.

        All the PM has said is that the texts need to go through the specified process AND THEN the meeting WILL occur. He has not said that the texts need to be incriminating to justify a meeting.

        BTW Read my to posts below, Pascal.

        • Pascal's bookie 8.1.1.1
          10 June 2009 at 10:28 am

          we’ve been through this. The ‘channels’ were invented by Key as a fall back position. He initially said he would meet with her. As the comments from righties now illustrate, the texts are being used as an excuse not to meet. Just as predicted.

          I’m done.

  9. Pat 9
    10 June 2009 at 9:53 am

    “Do you want to come skinny dipping?” might be offensive. Maybe Trotter is right about Leftie women.

  10. tsmithfield 10
    10 June 2009 at 9:59 am

    Pascals Bookie :
    I spent most of a day arguing rationally with this idiot. He has openly stated that he is only writing what he does to ‘provide balance’ rather than get at the truth. His arguments and justifications change back and forth with the the winds. My claim that he is dishonest and stupid are conclusions drawn from that.

    You are becoming very unimpressive, Pascal.

    Providing balance is essential for getting to the truth. Imagine a court case where only one side got to have their say. Would you say that was going to result in a fair and truthful account of the events?

    Turn your brain on before you make yourself an embarrasment.

    • Pascal's bookie 10.1
      10 June 2009 at 10:22 am

      “Imagine a court case where only one side got to have their say.”

      Imagine yourself in a conversation where one party isn’t actually interested in conversing, but rather in trying to convince a crowd. This is exactly my point.

      You see yourself as an advocate for Key and are aiming your comments at the lurkers, rather than as someone discussing facts with people to try and determine what is likely to be true.

      That is why you just ignore much of what people say to you and keep bringing up the same tired points in every thread, ignoring the points people make in response. To then claim victim status when people stop responding is pathetic.

      • felix 10.1.1
        10 June 2009 at 11:24 am

        Actually the other day he claimed not to be interested in defending Key, only in attacking Goff.

        He thought that made it seem more honourable, I think.

  11. tsmithfield 11
    10 June 2009 at 10:15 am

    Here is a quote from ‘the article’ where Goff releases the texts;

    Labour leader Phil Goff says he has not asked the Indian woman alleged to have received “sleazy” text messages from ex-minister Richard Worth what she said in response to his texts and phone calls or whether she ever asked him to stop contacting her.

    Duh. Braindead. Surely, this is the first thing Goff would check up on before putting forward this womans case. How is it going to look if Worth can provide evidence of texts coming from her where she uses all sorts of romantic language to him?

    After all, these texts from Worth do seem very conversational as if the two had been regularly exchanging texts. This does not seem like the behaviour of someone trying to ward off unwelcome advances on her part.

    Surely, given this, it was absolutely necessary for Goff to check the story out fully before potentially making an idiot of himself.

  12. Pascal's bookie 12
    10 June 2009 at 10:25 am

    “How is it going to look if Worth can provide evidence of texts coming from her where she uses all sorts of romantic language to him?”

    Pretty bad. Good thing it’s just a made up story isn’t it? And Goff would look as if he had’nt been treating this as a political issue. His problem would be one of taking the woman at her word. If he wanted to use this as a political hit job, then yes, he certainly should get his ducks in a row.

    But as I said, it’s just a made up story that is highly unlikely.

  13. Pat 13
    10 June 2009 at 10:33 am

    The woman will start to lose credibility if she replied to the texts in a coversational manner (rather than asking him to stop).

    Even my kids know that if you receive unwanted or offensive texts, the first thing you do is not reply to them, and then the second thing you do is save them so they can be held as evidence. My daughter handled a text bully like this, and within a week the bully was completely discredited and humiliated in front of her peers.

    How can an adult allow this alleged situation to carry on for weeks let alone months?

  14. Ianmac 14
    10 June 2009 at 10:38 am

    Although the contacts stopped after February, it was the resurgence of rumours and the Worth denials about other matters which prompted the May Goff telephone call to Key.
    “On the quiet John, I think you should know that these calls have the ability to be at least a nuisance, and may be an indication of difficulty. Oh. You already had heard of some “difficulties? Oh well. Leave it to you. OK?”

    “Damn it John! That was off the record and now you have told the reporters I’ll have to defend my part in it! Thats not the way it was supposed to happen. I hope you realise that even with TSM to defend the indefensible this will spell trouble for your credibility. What! You don’t care because you are wearing your son’s lucky tie! Ummm.”

    • tsmithfield 14.1
      10 June 2009 at 11:05 am

      This is a new spin Ianmac. Evidence?

      • Ianmac 14.1.1
        10 June 2009 at 11:46 am

        No “evidence” of course. Just how I imagine ordinary people would talk to each other in that situation.
        However. John Key was sold to the electorate as perfect well-suited to the top job. His handling of this and other “problems”, is his own display of his level of competence. Just speaking from the bloke in the street point of view.

  15. tsmithfield 15
    10 June 2009 at 10:41 am

    Pascals Bookie:
    That is why you just ignore much of what people say to you and keep bringing up the same tired points in every thread, ignoring the points people make in response.

    ROFLMAO PASCAL. This is absolutely typical of what I see at “the standard”. For a start, look at all the banal repetition threads on the same subject. If the same issues are continually regurgitated, don’t be surprised to see me putting forward the same arguments from my side.

    Pascal’s Bookie Good thing it’s just a made up story isn’t it?

    ?

    Is it?

    So what do you think the text to Worth might have been that prompted his reply

    ” I don’t need anything. Perhaps a tie from the Indian School of Business at Gachibowli but that might be impossible. RWW XX”

    • merlin 15.1
      10 June 2009 at 11:13 am

      ts: How is it going to look if Worth can provide evidence of texts coming from her where she uses all sorts of romantic language to him?’

      Pb: Pretty bad. Good thing it’s just a made up story isn’t it?

      ts: Is it?

      me: Yes

      you made it up a few minutes ago, remember? Or is whatever you seem to be smoking screwing up your memory as well as giving you hallucinations?

      • tsmithfield 15.1.1
        10 June 2009 at 11:23 am

        Merlin: you made it up a few minutes ago, remember? Or is whatever you seem to be smoking screwing up your memory as well as giving you hallucinations?

        Answer the question before you accuse me of making up stories.

        So what do you think the text to Worth might have been that prompted this reply???

        ‘ I don’t need anything. Perhaps a tie from the Indian School of Business at Gachibowli but that might be impossible. RWW XX’

        Would something like “Anything you want me to get for you hun?” seem that implausable?

        • merlin 15.1.1.1
          10 June 2009 at 1:45 pm

          Would ‘leave me alone I’m trying to get some shopping done?’ be plausible too?

          We can make up an infinite range of made-up baseless texts that could have preceded this one.

          There may not even have been a text from her.

          You don’t just get to assume there are texts from her like the one you made up. No-one involved has claimed their existance.

          You really are desperate to attack this woman in any way you can.

  16. gingercrush 16
    10 June 2009 at 11:04 am

    What a fucking con. I’ve been consistent that John Key has handled this badly. But my god this is getting pathetic. We’re led to believe this women is vulnerable. So vulnerable she didn’t have the hindsight to complain to Vodafone about harassing texts. So vulnerable she didn’t think of going to the police but went to the leader of the Labour party. We’re still being told she is vulnerable hence why she can’t go meet Key’s Chief of Staff. Yet she is quite happy for these texts to be dragged through the media.

    So she can’t meet Key’s Chief of Staff but she can have Goff comment to the media every damn day. What a fucking crock. This women isn’t vulnerable, she is just pathetic. She can’t even keep the damn texts which were so offensive in the first place. Goff said he had the evidence. What he has is a few texts and comments without any context whatsoever. How exactly is it admirable for Goff to comment on this case every day in the media? This is what the left tries and peddles to us. That somehow Goff is such a great and trustful man for approaching John Key about this incident. Yet he doesn’t keep any evidence. Now he just comments everyday in the media to score political points. Tat could have worked if he just shut the fuck up. But no Goff can’t do that. Instead he makes claim after claim after claim with little evidence. He gives this woman bad advice. He is not trusting. He has made this an even bigger mess.

    The political scoring is over with.The left can’t try and be holier-than-thou when your Leader isn’t being that. Of course you’ll still claim to be holier-than-thou. After all, self-denial is something certain elements on the left do well.

    • felix 16.1
      10 June 2009 at 11:45 am

      tsmithdpf is absolutely horrified by the idea that anyone might visit a page at the standard and NOT see one of his interchangeable, inconsistent and generally ridiculous theories being bandied about.

      So he comes here every day and copies and pastes the same tripe over and over again.

      He absolutely refuses to engage with anyone who calls him on his bullshit (“personal attacks wah wah!”) and he’s stated clearly that his purpose for being here is to make sure that attacks on Goff get plenty of coverage on the site.

      He’s a spammer and nobody can be bothered with him anymore so we just give him the ridicule and derision he deserves (“wahwah ad hominemz!”).

      Really there’s no point wasting your time talking reasonably with him as he has no interest in reason (as he freely admits).

      Clearly on the payroll as he can afford to do this from dawn till dusk daily so I won’t waste any more electricity on the sad little troll-for-hire. Unless he does something really funny.

  17. Pat 17
    10 June 2009 at 11:25 am

    I’m curious as to why Goff chose those 5 texts out of 34 to publish in the media. They naturally lead to two questions:

    *Are those 5 texts the most incriminating i.e. the “best” evidence Goff has got?
    *Did the woman reply to those texts, and if so, what did she say?

    • wtl 17.1
      10 June 2009 at 11:46 am

      Perhaps they are the LEAST embarrassing, and therefore she doesn’t mind them being released for everyone to see?

      • Pat 17.1.1
        10 June 2009 at 11:54 am

        Clutching at straws. If they were the least embarrassing, then surely Goff would have said so when he released them.

        • tsmithfield 17.1.1.1
          10 June 2009 at 12:10 pm

          Yep. Goff has already said the really offensive ones have been deleted. So this is as good as it gets.

    • felix 17.2
      10 June 2009 at 11:47 am

      Take that up with tsmithfield. He said that even one txt about swimming would be enough to hang, draw, and quarter Dr Worth.

      I suspect that went down his memory hole fairly quickly though.

      • tsmithfield 17.2.1
        10 June 2009 at 11:53 am

        felix: Take that up with tsmithfield. He said that even one txt about swimming would be enough to hang, draw, and quarter Dr Worth.

        I suspect that went down his memory hole fairly quickly though.

        See what I said earlier, felix. I said there is now no reason the texts can’t go through the prescribed channel since Goff sees fit to release them publicly. This being the case, there is nothing to stop her having her meeting with Key.

        Yes. If the context supports it, the text about swimming should be enough to sack Worth. For instance if she had replied with a text saying “FO you filthy old prick” But we can’t see the context from what Goff has released.

        However, can I get your feedback on what you think what text from the woman might have preceded:

        “I don’t need anything. Perhaps a tie from the Indian School of Business at Gachibowli but that might be impossible. RWW XX’

        • felix 17.2.1.1
          10 June 2009 at 1:22 pm

          Back to imagination-land I see.

          I’m going to pretend she said “Go and Hutchence yourself you filthy old perve. You need help.”

          You can pretend it was anything you like – it’s your fantasy, go hard!

  18. tsmithfield 18
    10 June 2009 at 12:28 pm

    Some people at the standard are now losing all credibility.

    For instance, anita stated earlier in this thread:

    If I were investigating, in good faith, a case of sexual harassment which included txts I would make sure the victim only had to show the txts to the minimum number of people possible.

    and

    I’m talking about this being handled as a case of sexual harassment, not how to handle it as a politically expedient media circus. Somewhere in all of this is a woman who has been distressed and upset by someone’s behaviour toward her. The process for discussing this, and the discussion about the process needs to remember this is, at heart, a sexual harassment case and that we need to address that with sensitivity and care.

    Where are you now Anita? Why aren’t you here throwing the borax at Goff for laying this womans personal situation in front of the nation when you have said that this needs to be treated with “sensitivity and care”? Can you see any reason at all now why the woman should not go through the prescribed channels now the worst of the (undeleted) texts are out in the open for all to see.

    • Anita 18.1
      10 June 2009 at 12:40 pm

      If she has chosen to make the txt messages public as a truly free choice then I support her choice and strength in making that decision.

      If Goff pressured her into allowing him to release them then I think his behaviour is appalling and he should be ashamed of himself

      If media pressure and public speculation has made her feel it was necessary to release them to defend herself then I think the media’s behaviour has been appalling and we all should be ashamed of ourselves.

      I have been generally uncomfortable with Goff’s recent media interaction about her case (as I have written several times), because even if she’s fully comfortable with his actions he’s risked setting an expectation on other victims of sexual harassment.

      —

      How’re you going with Key’s behaviour btw?

      I suspect this is easier for me because I’m not a Labour supporter and would rather that, if we were to have a Labour government, Goff was not PM. I have no stake in defending him.

    • Ag 18.2
      10 June 2009 at 1:01 pm

      The only person losing all credibility is you.

      The others are correct: you are a sophist. Your complaints about others not taking your “arguments” seriously are themselves sophistry, since you yourself don’t take them seriously enough to make them rationally consistent.

      There’s no obligation to listen or respond to people whose only aim is to prevent rational debate.

      About time the ban hammer came down.

      • tsmithfield 18.2.1
        10 June 2009 at 1:15 pm

        Look down this thread, Ag, there are lots of people making similar criticisms to me.

        In case you haven’t noticed I have just apologised to Anita for the assertions I made about her.

        Look at what Anita has just written though:

        “I have been generally uncomfortable with Goff’s recent media interaction about her case..”

        She doesn’t like the way Goff has been handling it either.

        I think I have been very consistent in my approach. Look back at my comments. I have advanced a few alternative theories that could explain some of the inconsistencies I have pointed to. This is the only way I can think that I have changed my stance.

        Why do you always seem to see banning dissenting opinion as a way to deal with people who disagree with you? How is anything I have written been any worse than any of the stuff I have read here criticising Key?

  19. tsmithfield 19
    10 June 2009 at 12:54 pm

    Anita “How’re you going with Key’s behaviour btw?”

    I don’t think Keys behaviour has been perfect either.

    However, the reason for my comments has been that the focus here has been entirely on him. There is enough comment here putting up criticism for Key, so there is probably no need for me to add to this. However, I think Goff has a lot to answer for as well.

    BTW, apologies for my previous post. You have been consistent in your position and I commend you for that.

    BTW, do you see any reason now why the process prescribed by Key can’t now be followed, given that the key texts are now public knowledge anyway?

    • Anita 19.1
      10 June 2009 at 1:01 pm

      I’m not sure what Key’s prescribed path now is 🙂 I’m guessing that as he no longer needs Eagleson to vet whether or not there are txt messages Key can just meet with her. In which case that sounds just fine to me 🙂

      One of the the things about the sexual harassment support processes I’ve worked within has been trying to reduce the number of people victims are required to tell. Retelling events can be embarrassing and humiliating, so any process that requires the story to be told more often and to more people than necessary is a bad process.

      Yeah, I’m trying to be pretty consistent about analysing this is a sexual harassment issue rather than a political game. It kinda bugs me that the media is so busy playing Goff vs Key that the woman is alternately ignored and insulted 🙁

      • tsmithfield 19.1.1
        10 June 2009 at 1:06 pm

        Let me tell you, I actually hope that something does come of this because there is nothing I would like better than to see Worth kicked out of the party.

        • Nick 19.1.1.1
          10 June 2009 at 1:16 pm

          Hey TS,

          Not really sure what planet you come from but here on Earth despite protestations to the contrary by ideological bigots, religious nutters and such like twisted minds, black is still black and white is white, and yes sleaze is sleaze and expedient spin is expedient spin……..

        • Anita 19.1.1.2
          10 June 2009 at 1:24 pm

          tsmithfield writes,

          Let me tell you, I actually hope that something does come of this because there is nothing I would like better than to see Worth kicked out of the party.

          Y’see, this is pretty much the attitude that’s bugging me.

          The goal should be to resolve the issue so that woman feels safe and respected, and so that no-one else goes through what she went through. I’m not convinced kicking Worth out of the Party will achieve that (if he’s that kind of man it’s not because of his membership of the National Party) or is necessary to acheive that.

          There are plenty of people with political axes to grind here, and plenty of people who’d like to see National free of Worth, but the victim’s distress shouldn’t be seen as a tool in their political game.

          Sure I think it would be great if National decided to combat sexual harassment by censuring or expelling all sexual harassers, but I don’t think that’s what you’re talking about.

  20. The Voice of Reason 20
    10 June 2009 at 1:19 pm

    ” … given that the key texts are now public knowledge anyway?”

    The key texts? I thought they were from Worth?

    On a less spurious note, you seem to ignore that the ones released are not all of them. We’ve already been told that some have been deleted. I assume that would be the more offensive ones.

    In regard to why the victim would continue communicating with Worth, it has already been acknowleged that cultural values have played a part in her showing undue respect to this sleaze. That is, he is an older person in authority and was shown respect he really doesn’t deserve.

    A bit off thread, TS, but a resignation as an alternative to dismissal is not a constructive dismissal as you claimed yesterday. It’s often a small mercy to a worker who has been caught dead to rights. It’s a common outcome where the employment relationship must end, but the employer does not wish to make life even worse for the errant employee. It is not grounds for a successful employment case.

    • Anita 20.1
      10 June 2009 at 1:37 pm

      The Voice of Reason,

      In regard to why the victim would continue communicating with Worth, it has already been acknowleged that cultural values have played a part in her showing undue respect to this sleaze. That is, he is an older person in authority and was shown respect he really doesn’t deserve

      Actually I’ve seen similar behaviour from many Pākeha: if I just pretend it’s not happening, and behave as if it’s not, then it will stop. People do that about offensive jokes all the time, and deeply inappropriate passes, and so on.

      When your boss says something icky embedded in a question about how your weekend was (“How was your weekend? I was thinking about you when I was in the spa togs-free on Saturday night, you really would have enjoyed it. So did you have a fun weekend?”) most NZers will answer the surface question “my weekend was pretty busy”  and perhaps indirectly gently remind of the inappropriateness “two toddlers keep Geoff and me pretty busy”  rather than directly raise the ickiness “Dave, I don’t think it’s ok that you imply that I should come over for a naked spa with you, especially as you’re my boss and I have said ‘no’ several times”.

      Whatever you think people should do, what they actually do is much more like avoidance and hoping-it-will-stop-if-not-encouraged.

  21. Maynard J 21
    10 June 2009 at 1:31 pm

    Does no one see the irony in simultaneously arguing that the complainant should show the texts to Eagleson first, while pointing out that the last text does not seem bad on the face of it?

    Thank you, for illustrating the absurdity of Key’s actions in demanding that she ‘go through the “proper” channels’. You have shown there is one likely outcome:

    Eagleson does not give the ok, complainant forced to explain the texts and context in detail to Key’s CoS before explaining again to Key. Exactly what Anita has pointed out to be the worst outcome for the complainant in this situation.

    Top marks.

    And tsmithfield:
    “However, can I get your feedback on what you think what text from the woman might have preceded:”

    Remembering that Goff told the truth about the phone call’s timing, and Key lied through is teeth, here is the story about that text you can trust:

    “Mr Goff said that according to her notes, she had also received a text about her getting a see-through top in Hyderabad.

    She had not been sure whether he wanted the top for himself and so had texted him back to clarify.

    His response was about getting him a tie and was signed with kisses.”

    Anita:

    The messages came from the complainant’s written account. Not sure why it was released or who authorised it. Doubtless tsmithfield has imagined a worst case scenario that is really bad.

  22. Pat 22
    10 June 2009 at 1:37 pm

    Willie & JT are taking the piss about the texts right now.

    • SDL Sparo 22.1
      10 June 2009 at 2:33 pm

      well, I guess those two – as the irish might term them — him and hisself — sure do need help.. after “guilty as sin” – Both .. prior the Bain verdict ..

  23. SDL Sparo 23
    10 June 2009 at 2:28 pm

    ‘Balance’ by conjecture… now there’s something..

    Allow me add to the pile — admittedly with a great deal more 🙂 — mebbe the tie was for his swimwear..

  24. tsmithfield 24
    10 June 2009 at 3:32 pm

    Maynard

    here is the story about that text you can trust:

    “Mr Goff said that according to her notes, she had also received a text about her getting a see-through top in Hyderabad.

    She had not been sure whether he wanted the top for himself and so had texted him back to clarify.

    His response was about getting him a tie and was signed with kisses.’

    I am prepared to accept this as an accurate record of the conversation. However, even on the face of this conversation, it sounds like they at least had a warm enough friendship for her to be happily doing shopping for him in India. Afterall, she was asking for clarification about what he wanted her to buy for him. If she was so offended by the attention from Worth, why did she bother to respond at all?

    This is why it is important to see the texts going both ways. Goff is very remiss, by his own admission, in not checking out the texts going the other way. She should certainly still have these, if, by her own admission, she has only deleted the really offensive ones from Worth.

    • Maynard J 24.1
      10 June 2009 at 6:18 pm

      “If she was so offended by the attention from Worth, why did she bother to respond at all?”

      Who knows. Maybe she thought pissing off a minister was a bad idea. Maybe she really wanted one of those sinecures and was hoping to get it without rooting anyone. Could be anything really, I am not sure of the value of such speculation based upon total ignorance and amateur psychology.

      We could have a long and pointless argument around semantics with this sentence “She should certainly still have these, if, by her own admission, she has only deleted the really offensive ones from Worth.”. Are you keen?

      Me first: That could mean she only kept texts from Worth in the first place, thus; they were the only ones available for deletion. That is if you frame the whole discussion around the texts being from Worth, which it has been up until this point.

      You could argue a narrow frame of reference, that the sentence clearly means that the only texts deleted are ones that are a) from Worth and b) offensive.

      Then we can waffle on for the rest of the day, when we will a) resolve not a lot and b) be speaking in hypotheticals at the best of times.

      Perhaps you should stop making all of these hypothetical scenario-based assumptions based on your interpretation of a piece of information taken without context, because the pattern is becoming rather established, and it is not a good one.

      “The silence from the left on this one now says a lot.”

      I, for one, did not know what you are talking about till I just saw the news. See my para above.

  25. gingercrush 25
    10 June 2009 at 3:51 pm

    Oh wow this gets even better. This supposedly sexually harassed victim is married to a convicted fraudster.

    • Pat 25.1
      10 June 2009 at 4:13 pm

      Yep thanks to Goff and Rudman, the Rights’ Dark Knight has joined the dots and harpooned the Femme Fatale.

      If the media grow a pair and follow this up, then Goff’s handling of the affair has just reached the high tide mark. He might want to hide on the yacht with Worth.

      • Daveo 25.1.1
        10 June 2009 at 6:45 pm

        Whaleoil had it leaked through him by National. Don’t act so naive, it’s embarrassing.

  26. tsmithfield 26
    10 June 2009 at 4:16 pm

    The silence from the left on this one now says a lot.

  27. gingercrush 27
    10 June 2009 at 4:16 pm

    There is also a juicy Sari article where she clearly knows what “sex” is about.

    • Maynard J 27.1
      10 June 2009 at 6:23 pm

      Really, how pathetic can you get?

      Do you know what pattern on a sari indicates fertility or sexuality? No? Think about that for a second.

  28. Pat 28
    10 June 2009 at 4:19 pm

    Can’t wait for Labour’s List placings and see what she got for her efforts.

  29. tsmithfield 29
    10 June 2009 at 5:30 pm

    Hmmm…the Bonny and Clyde of the Labour Party perhaps. Looks like she might have learnt a trick or two from her “colourful” husband.

    This revelation makes the honey-trap scenario much more plausible.

    Here is a very simple explanation of why the texts were deleted and the phone-calls were not recorded:

    1. The really vulgar texts never existed. That is just a fabrication. It can’t be proved they ever existed at all.
    2. The phone-calls were initially recorded. But Worth didn’t give up anything incriminating on those either. So, rather than put up evidence that was a total non-event, it was better to say the phone calls weren’t taped. Then a whole story could be invented about all the disgusting things that Worth had said to her.

  30. gobsmacked 30
    10 June 2009 at 5:42 pm

    Yes, the woman’s case is so feeble that … she’s written to the Prime Minister about it:

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2009/06/10/1245b5aeba3c

    Putting it in writing? Handing it over to the opposition, who could leak it? Only a fool would do that, surely?

    Unless, of course, they knew damn well that they were right.

    • tsmithfield 30.1
      10 June 2009 at 5:51 pm

      Remember we are dealing with the wife of a fraudster here, who has probably had help with this little scam from him.

      If you’re going to play this sort of game, you have to take it all the way. No half measures. Writing to the PM was entirely predictable.

      • aj 30.1.1
        10 June 2009 at 6:27 pm

        has anyone told you that you talk complete shit?

        captcha – so apt – ‘pickled talk’

  31. gingercrush 31
    10 June 2009 at 5:50 pm

    Tv3 identifying the woman tonight. Hopefully they bring up the fact her husband is a convicted fraudster.

    • Maynard J 31.1
      10 June 2009 at 6:12 pm

      I wonder if they will judge her by her husband. Decent society does not. I doubt they will do it so gracefully as you, gingercrush. And may I just say, good on you for toning it down well over at this site. But that does not make you not a fuckwit:

      “I officially give this woman no credibility whatsoever. I hope she and Goff are fucked. There is no way I am going to trust a bitch that knows her husband is committing fraud and then is supposedly sexually harassed. Yeah right. What a bitch.”

      No words required to illustrate what is wrong with that comment.

      • gingercrush 31.1.1
        10 June 2009 at 6:22 pm

        Yes well The Standard has tougher moderation so obviously I would have to tone it down here. This blog is also dominated by those with leftist views. Thus I am always more careful what I post here because of the nature of the majority who post here.

        • Maynard J 31.1.1.1
          10 June 2009 at 6:28 pm

          There’s also common decency, that would not be acceptable to about 99% of humanity. Hence “the sewer”.

          So your spouse commits fraud, and by extension, you have done something wrong and are not to be trusted or believed.

          You are all arguing for the proof against Worth, yet the ‘proof’ that this person is lying is her husband? What is wrong with you?

          • gingercrush 31.1.1.1.1
            10 June 2009 at 6:42 pm

            Read the NZ Herald article which shows that the wife is in a way implicated with the fraud story.That questions her credibility. We’re led to believe this is some innocent person that can’t disassociate herself from sexual harassment? We’re led to believe she made no contact with this person. The Texts that have been shown signal that this person was herself engaging in text messages with Worth. Worth may well be sleazy, he may well be a creep. But you know. If you’re uncomfortable with several text messages you’d put a stop to it. This woman didn’t.

            I don’t hold someone who is heavily involved in the Labour Party, who has questions about her business dealings in high regard. I don’t believe her. I don’t find her credible. She was not passive in her dealings with Worth. There is also the issue that she has accused others of sexually harassment. Her credibility is shot as far as I am concerned.

            This is more and more looking like Labour setting up shit. This in no way exonerates Richard Worth. I’ll agree with that. As far as I’m concerned he’s sleazy. But there are serious questions that need to be asked about Neelam Choudary.

          • felix 31.1.1.1.2
            10 June 2009 at 6:48 pm

            And that makes it okay to call her “bitch”, does it?

            True face of the national party on display.

          • hippityho 31.1.1.1.3
            10 June 2009 at 6:52 pm

            Banned for life, along with the rest of your handles. We do not tolerate attacks on authors’ personal lives.

  32. tsmithfield 32
    10 June 2009 at 6:19 pm

    Here is a link to the Herald article about the fraud. It looks like she had involvement in it. So, her credibility is shot to shreds so far as I am concerned.

    A honey-trap. The best explanation available that fits the facts.

    • Slick Rick 32.1
      10 June 2009 at 6:33 pm

      Funny you use that term. It’s the same thing the Nats have been peddling through Whaleoil.

    • merlin 32.2
      10 June 2009 at 6:33 pm

      Wouldn’t they have kept the texts and, you know, sought to publicise them if it was a honey-trap?

      Yours is a weird little dream world TS. At least you’ve got Slater for company.

  33. mike 33
    10 June 2009 at 6:19 pm

    Labour has been outed well and truly on the news tonight – funny that they now “want to see an end to it”

    A dark chapter in Goffs brief leadership

    • gobsmacked 33.1
      10 June 2009 at 6:28 pm

      What was outed, Mike?

      The existence of the texts? Check. That Worth harrassed the woman? Check. That Labour’s support in Mt Albert is actually going up? Check.

      A bit more on the right’s misogyny would have been good, but hey, we can’t have everything.

      • tsmithfield 33.1.1
        10 June 2009 at 6:34 pm

        did you have a look at that link gobsmacked?

        • gobsmacked 33.1.1.1
          10 June 2009 at 6:48 pm

          And?

          There are very good reasons why National MPs don’t launch attacks on the family members of Labour party members (not even MPs). Very, very good reasons. It’s called Mutually Assured Destruction.

          You don’t want to go there. Or maybe you do. I don’t.

          • gingercrush 33.1.1.1.1
            10 June 2009 at 6:57 pm

            Yeah you didn’t read it did you. It implies she was into those dealings as well.

  34. Daveo 34
    10 June 2009 at 6:42 pm

    What I find disgusting is how the National Party has chosen a deliberate strategy of targeting the victim – first through Farrar’s constant attacks on her credibility and motives, then by leaking her identity through Slater and then TVNZ news.

    Really goes to the core of what these people stand for.

  35. gingercrush 35
    10 June 2009 at 6:55 pm

    Oh Felix you and others on the left call National Party supporters, MPs etc. fuckwits and worse all the time.Please don’t act all holier-than-thou now.

    Was I wrong to call her a bitch? Yes probably. I’ll admit to being in the heat of the moment when I posted that. In hindsight I would have been best to leave that out.

    • felix 35.1
      10 June 2009 at 7:32 pm

      Yes ginger that’s right, I do call you a fuckwit. But as both of my friends would tell you, I am a gruff and abrasive prick.

      And you have outed yourself as a misogynist.

      Oh, but only in the heat of the moment, eh ginge?

      Fuckwit.

      • gingercrush 35.1.1
        10 June 2009 at 7:49 pm

        So I call a female a bitch and I am suddenly a “misogynist”. So when you all labeled Melissa Lee several ways, you weren’t acting “misogynistic”? When Paula Bennett does something and several of you label her you aren’t acting “misogynistic”?

        • felix 35.1.1.1
          10 June 2009 at 8:40 pm

          Yes you are. Now show me where I’ve used misogynistic language.

          Fuckwit.

  36. Rodney 36
    10 June 2009 at 7:32 pm

    well well gingercrush I suppose now you and snakeoil will also be pillorying the Korean businesswoman for her objections to your party’s treatment of women, doubtless calling her ‘bitch’ as well for upsetting your tory sensibilities.

    What jolly boys you are on kiwiblog, drinking to your cleverness in your boys’ own world… but this attitude sends a signal to all women voters who are offended by your misogynist attitudes, one that is startling in its clarity. Gingercrush thinks women are bitches, yes I read all your comments at kiwiblog too like many people.

    Really, you should pull your head in. But otoh, for politics’ sake, please keep it up.