Written By: - Date published: 7:48 am, June 12th, 2009 - 165 comments
Categories: john key, Media, richard worth, scoundrels, sexism -
Tags:
I haven’t really wanted to get involved in the whole debate surrounding Richard Worth. It’s horrible and messy, and makes me feel sick every time I see fuel added to the fire. It was no surprise to see the creep Cameron Slater (Whale Oil) publish her name, but it was a surprise to see the media irresponsibly follow his lead.
TVNZ used the excuse that it turned out she was a Labour Party activist. Well, it was clear from the start that she was a Labour Party member. And if the difference between member and activist was so important, is there any reason they could not have stated that apparently new revelation without actually naming her?
David Farrar claims that TV3′s decision to publish her name was due to it already being fairly obvious who she was. I would seriously dispute that, as there is a big difference between a few keen people bothering to google it, and the whole population seeing her photograph posted all over the news. Imagine how she feels about going out in public right now, wondering if people will recognise her?
I don’t really care whether the allegations are true or not, as it is not a decision to be made by either me or the media. My issue is with the process. Attacking a complainant of sexual harassment publicly has a very high likelihood of preventing future complaints of a similar nature. Like women don’t already feel scared enough coming forward about these sorts of matters – it is estimated for example, that only around 1 in 10 cases of sexual assault are reported to the police.
The complainant never wanted this to become public, hence why it was only raised in private with the Prime Minister. It was John Key who made this story public in the first place, and he is the reason why it is still playing out messily in the media. I cannot understand why he wouldn’t just meet with her as she requested. It was an understandable request, clearly she felt she would be able to best put her case in person.
I also don’t understand why her credibility is being attacked. It is clear that there have been other similar complaints about Richard Worth (like the one the police are investigating, and the other rumours it is alleged John Key had heard), and it’s not as though this complaint was raised after the complainant knew about those cases. Those attacking her seem to accept the other story out there, so what reason is there for believing she is lying, regardless of her background?
Lastly, I find assertions that the complainant having been a nominee to be candidate in the general election makes her somehow able to deal with this sort of thing ridiculous. I don’t know the complainant very well, but I have met her a couple of times. She didn’t strike me as someone overly assertive, and even I, with all the confidence in the world have had problems stopping unwanted attention from assholes in the past.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Which part didn’t the PM understand, Maggie? All of it, I’m afraid. He’s hopeless at managing people. And not too good at picking them in the first place, either, as the good folk of Mt Albert will demonstrate tomorrow.
Jared:
You quote Key here:
“”I’ve had someone bring an allegation to me of that nature. All I can say I treated the allegation seriously. I investigated it and I was satisfied with the answers I received,’ Mr Key said.
But according to you, Key did not know the woman’s name, or her involvement with the Labour Party, or anything that was previously reported about her husband, or anything about Worth’s involvement with her. If he had known, he would have lost confidence in Worth, because – according to you – she was obviously this Labour activist stringing him along.
What questions would you ask if you conducted this investigation, Jared? How about “Who is this woman?”
So there was no investigation, was there? So Key lied about that.
Or, there was an investigation. And Key found out about the woman. And kept Worth in his job.
Which?
So because he was involved with her, thats grounds for Key to lose confidence in him? Yeah, right.
Key’s investigation I am assuming would have been about the validity of her accusations, which as we have seen in the past couple of days, have been mere accusations without any evidence to prove their existence. If you are referring to Key knew the game Goff was trying to play and merely called his bluff” I meant interms of Key demanding for the complainant to forward the complaint (an official one no less) and the “evidence” to his chief of staff. I wasn’t implying that he knew before Goff talked to him.
I wasn’t implying that he knew before Goff talked to him.
Agreed. I’m not either.
But Goff talked to him on May 6. He had confidence in Worth until May 26. He expressed that confidence in Parliament. Repeatedly.
If Mrs Choudhary is as you previously claimed (10.58 a.m.), which is the knowing manipulator of Richard Worth, with many black marks against her name, then Key had confidence in a Minister and knew about the relationship.
The worse you make her look, the worse you make Worth look. Therefore, the worse Key’s judgement looks.
There is no escaping from that. As you’ll find out in weeks to come, when attention returns to where it should be: Worth’s actions, and the Prime Minister’s handling of them.
Once again, the Prime Ministers judgement of whether or not they have confidence in a minister should be based on substantive evidence rather than who they associate with. He may well have known of the relationship, so what? We are questioning whether or not Neelam Choudary knowingly manipulated Richard Worth and whether or not her claims of Richard Worth abusing his power by offering jobs for sex are actually real, or simply fantasy.
GS, Mr Mallard had many, many black marks against his name. So did Mr Peters. So did several other members of Helen Clark’s cabinet, including some that she eventually dismissed.
The standard of evidence produced against Dr Worth was very poor at the time. It has barely improved over time. The claims of jobs for sexual favours has never been substantiated. The claim of sexual favours and sleazy behaviour by Dr Worth still hasn’t been substantiated.
Even knowing what we do now, if I were Mr Key, I would not have sacked Mr Worth over the allegations that have so far come forward. There are so many holes in the patchy evidence that Mr Goff has put forward, there is no reason on that alone to dismiss Dr Worth.
Dr Worth’s real failing appears to have been the fact that he knew that a criminal complaint against him was going to be made, and that he didn’t inform the Prime Minister of this situation. That is unforgiveable.
Key never asked to see the evidence Tim. He still hasn’t. the only evidence he has against is a promised affidavit that has not yet been delivered.
Dr Worth’s real failing appears to have been the fact that he knew that a criminal complaint against him was going to be made, and that he didn’t inform the Prime Minister of this situation.
Except 1) there is no reason why Key could not say so. And 2) at his Monday press conference he specifically ruled that out (listen at Scoop website).
Mickey Savage “What is your opinion of Key’s handling of this?”
I think it is a game of two halves. Key played the first half badly. However, Goff has lost the lead and lost the game in the second half.
The other thing is, which half do people tend to remember, the first or the last?
I think what most will tend to remember is that within a few months of being elected this government had to dump a slime ball Minister and handled it very badly.
Bad eggs happen within every government, it would be ludicrous to suggest any government would be without scandal and controversy. Unlike the Winston affair, I don’t believe this will have an adverse impact on voter confidence and opinion. The only people it will sway will be those National would never appeal to anyway.
They tend to remember the police inquiry. And that’s yet to conclude.
tsmithfield,
I’m not sure I agree. I think the lasting impression people will have is that Worth is icky, Key’s handling of it was questioned, and it was all a bit of a schemozzle. Possibly they will also have a vague memory of an indian woman in a sleeveless top, which will colour the “icky”.
I doubt many will remember Goff’s role in it – Goff fails to have brand recognition IME, show people a bunch of politician’s photos and they don’t recognise Goff, or that he’s leader of Labour.
Anita, I think time will tell on it.
I tend to agree with your first two contentions: that the public will see Dr Worth as a bit icky, that Mr Key’s initial handling of the matter was flawed, but that also Mr Goff tried to milk it for all it was worth politically and didn’t let truth get in the way of a good story.
But of course the real story was always key’s poor investigation. The ‘success’ of National has been in muddying that issue, allowing the PM to dodge responsibility. Even now he won’t hear the woman’s complaint, even though he was casting doubt on it at various points and Worth hasn’t fronted with his promised affidavit.
There is still a governance issue in reality, even if the media have forgotten about it in favour of the sleaze.
This week around the tea tables in private-sector-company-not-in-Wellington I’ve heard a lot of chatter about the issue, and I don’t think I’ve heard Goff mentioned. The main theme has been that politicians are corrupt-icky-lying-bastards and this lot is just as bad as the last lot, which from a p-s-c-n-i-W that, I reckon, voted for National by a significant majority, is real damage to Key’s government.
I’m afraid the schemozzle (great word) has a long way to run.
Next: the martyrdom of Richard Worth. And, I fear, the attacks on the other (Korean) woman.
Lets just get this cleared up once and for all. If Neelam Choudary had a genuine grievance with Richard Worth she would not have complained through Phil Goff, She would have broken off contact with Richard Worth, compiled her evidence and submitted to John Key’s chief of staff a detailed complaint with evidence. Had she done this, her background would not have come into disrepute. Her problem is that she is alleging evidence she cannot prove if her current disclosures are correct.
There has got to be a level where the victim can be scrutinised, especially if things don’t add up with their story. Look at the Bain Trial for instance, the alleged victim, Robin Bain, was publicly portrayed as the killer and he wasn’t even around to defend himself
Yeah, and the treatment of both Robin and Laniet Bain troubles me too.
You will note that I am, at least, consistent
“There has got to be a level where the victim can be scrutinised”
Do you mean there has got to be a level where you can scrutinise the victim? If not you, who? and why?
Trial by media disgusts me – was not ok with Bain, not in this case.
It is only ok when it is people elected to represent us in some capacity. And even then it can go too far.
Maybe what the public will remember out of all this is that Worth was yicky, derserved to go, and Key was decisive and sacked him.
Decisive? He made a decision and then did nothing about it for a week. That’s decisive?
I think you have the wrong dictionary,ts. Send it back.
I don’t think the public will remember the week. I think they will, however, remember that Key’s handling of it was strongly questioned by lots of people
He made a considered decision, not a shoot from the hip one which is what you seem to think he should have done.
I thought Worth resigned and Key wasn’t going to comment on the matter but then he did comment on the matter saying it was related to a cirminal investigation laer confirmed as sexual and then he mentioned having investigated earlier rumours of Worth making a nuisanse of himself towards women and then he cast doubt on that woman’s story and then he agreed to meet with her and then he backed out and then he said he had sacked Worth after all but wouldn’t say why and then he got a letter from her and accepted her story and washed his hands off Worth.
But maybe that’s just my recollection of events.
I think it is a game of two halves. Key played the first half badly. However, Goff has lost the lead and lost the game in the second half
But the game is still going. It is just that Goff has run off the field because he has forgotten the rules, admits the linekeeper is strikingly beautiful and realised his team shirt is actually see through and so doesn’t want to play anymore. And the opposition has scored twice ( so to speak).
Mixed your metaphors – is Key the ‘opposition’? If so, they scored twice but were ruled professional fouls and the captain gave his player a red card before the ref ruled on it.
It is convenient for you to forget that Phil Goff tabled an unsigned uncorroborated statement (claiming harassment by Richard Worth) in Parliament that had the protection of priviledge. No doubt Worth is a buffoon but this kind of character assassination where the target has no redress is underhand to say the least. Worse still the statement was typed out by Labour minions after a telephone conversation with the complainant. At first it was claimed to be an affadavit – what nonsense. Given these tactics of course all had to be exposed – ‘sunlight is a great disinfectant’. That Phil (and his ‘friend’) has now found themselves in deep poo is a predictable outcome.
Actually that is irrelevant to my post. My post was about the media naming the complainant and attacking her credibility. If you want to comment on the general issues of who has played the game better, which politician is more honest / dishonest etc, there are plenty of threads where that would be on-topic.
Any comments on what I actually wrote?
My point is that no-one should be allowed to hide behind an uncorroborated unsigned statement that is protected by priviledge. Of course the media (who were willing enough to publish the accusations) should name the complainant. Goff has claimed that this woman is some kind of shrinking violet, which she isn’t, that she was imposed upon, but it transpires that she was a willing participant in the relationship with Worth. If she had not been named we would not know the truth – perhaps the truth really hurts.
Who is hiding behind privilege? Isn’t being able to protect individuals the point of privilege?
To take a clear cut example: let’s imagine a privileged statement contained allegations by an unnamed teacher that regional MSD staff were failing to protect an unnamed an unnamed child from sexual abuse by an unnamed foster parent. The statement is tabled in the house and the Minister is given the name and contact details of the teacher, and the name of both the child and the foster parent. Would you argue that the teacher, child and foster parent should be named by the media or bloggers if they can figure it out?
Before you become all absolute about privilege it would be worth figure out some principles.
If you cannot see the difference between character assassination and child protection then you have a problem. The issue here of course is that ONE NAMED INDIVIDUAL (not an organization) is attacked by another unnamed person using the protection of PARLIAMENTARY priviledge. He then has NO REDRESS to a defamation action. There is no comparison with your example where NO PERSON IS NAMED. You have failed to appreciate that Parliamentary priviledge enables media to publish the material with freedom. In your example nobody is publicly named.
Trout: The issue here of course is that ONE NAMED INDIVIDUAL (not an organization) is attacked by another unnamed person using the protection of PARLIAMENTARY priviledge. He then has NO REDRESS to a defamation action.
He is an MP. He can stand up in parliament and say why the accusation is incorrect. Probably then he’d then have to prove it to the privileges committee.
Since Worth didn’t choose to do that, then I guess there is a teensy wee flaw in your premise.
Ok, imagine the imaginary statement names the regional office of MSD (so the names of all the staff can be inferred), or gives the first name of one of the MSD case workers, or names the regional Manager of the MSD office.
Does this mean the teacher, child, or foster parent should be named?
I didn’t say this was a similar example, I was challenging your statement
you need to think through the reasons privilege exists, and what you think the principles for its use should be. What do you think they should be?
Not wanting to distract from the point of principle, there is an accuser in the Worth case – it was Goff who tabled the letter, any come back is on him.
Also, and I can’t check right now, I’m pretty sure the use of Parliamentary privilege doesn’t protect media retransmission in a straightforward way. Wasn’t there a recent Privileges Committee report suggesting a change to this?
…Phil Goff tabled an unsigned uncorroborated statement (claiming harassment by Richard Worth) in Parliament that had the protection of priviledge. No doubt Worth is a buffoon but this kind of character assassination where the target has no redress is underhand to say the least.
Richard Worth is still a member of parliament. He does have redress. He could always stand up in the house and say why it is incorrect.
So you are pushing bullshit.
Get real – standing up in the House and making a personal statement is a poor and inadequate way to respond to character asassination – especially since the MSM will ignore it. And if I recall the Statement was tabled by Goff at such a time to get maximum exposure and prevent immediate rebuttal. I must say the Left do seem to have an inexhaustible supply of self justifications
Character assassination? Parliamentary privilege?
How about “pervert”. Ring a bell?
If not, ask the Minister of Police, and the Minister of Local Government.
“Any comments on what I actually wrote?”
Yeah, Rocky – what about: “…so what reason is there for believing she is lying ‘
How about “see-through clothing’
or that Feb 23 was when “contact stopped’ – except she met Worth again in a cafe on Mar 27.
But those quotes were Goff’s words, so maybe he was lying. Or she was lying to Goff.
I don’t what we all are arguing about. Worth and Neelum belong where they are. He chases skirts. He is not fit to be MP leave alone a minister.
John Key was wrong giving him a ministers position knowing about him. Worse still after so many embarresments it took a police case to see him go. Agreed Jhn Key is a very poor leader. But look at his experience. He has little or no experience to be in the current job. No experience in any cabinet. How amny years was he a MP. It is our fault giving him such a experience. Even if we agree all of this What happened in the case of Neelam and Worth is John Keys fault. Goff Goofed. He took her on her face value (may be even smitten by her) and lost. Goff is an experience politician. He should know nothing it seems. He should have checked the facts before he put his mouth where his foot is.
Neelam is not an angel herself. I was reading somewhere the time line of the whole thing.
An aspiring Labour Candidate what was she doing at Richard’s party and why was she so interested in getting a photo with him.
I can raise so many questions. She should know people are not dumb.
What was she doing having coffee with him after the final text from Worth.
She was scared of his power. Common this is not India and she is not anybody. One police complaint about Richard worth she he would have gone home in Nov/Dec.
One of my friends used to say even a bad publicity is a publicity. Who knows if labour chooses her for the next election she may say that she is thewho brought Dr Worth down.
Except you can’t prove a negative. How exactly is he meant to prove that the allegation is false? Isn’t the whole point of our system that the person making the allegation has to prove it?
[edit] Grr, meant to be a reply to lprent at 3:36 pm but showed up above it for some reason.