http://lifeandpolitics.wordpress.com/2009/06/05/simon-power-for-prime-minister/

free clue to the ninth floor: Key not getting to say enough was not the problem.

Now Key is caught out protecting a man with a history of sexist behaviour towards women, according to Key, and who has now sexually harassed a woman. Even worse Key is now actively attacking the woman’s character in order to protect his disgraceful management of this affair.

Score sheet for Key

Herceptin bribed women in 2008, even though there was little evidence of efficacy over an extended period

Current score:

One vote for Key re the lengthier dose of Herceptin, for a few women but which is not even a proven cure

Two votes against Key re gender wage discrimination, the obvious agenda for the lowered place of women under a NAct government, and sexual misogyny.

The women’s groups are noting these new sexist attacks on their daughters’ independent futures and on their sons’ freedom to choose a life outside the macho machine. Any woman who seriously believes in John Key’s loyalty to women obviously does not believe in a fair wage for a fair day’s work philosophy.

… What does Anne Tolley have to do with all this?

“I’m the indecider. I make the indecisions!”

Funny that in all this you are saying what Tim Ellis would do, and basically who gives a toss about the person making the complaint – you have not even started to give that consideration. I can see why you come up with such a distorted view, given that you think the most important thing is what Goff did, not what the complainant’s wishes were. Perhaps distorted is too mild a term.

What are those stages of trauma – anger then denial? First you dump on the complainant, then you pretend they do not exist. Curious. You ok about all this?

Are you foolish enough to believe Goff could have “done something” against her wishes and it would not have become a public issue? Especially with great people out there like grumpy, who seem to genuinely believe it is a complete set-up? Grumpy can not even fathom that someone might want to make a decision for themselves and has to pretend that the person is now weak, and needed hand holding.

With idiots out there like that it is no wonder this person was concerned about it becoming public. Maybe it took the comment alluding to someone’s death before she decided to take action. Quite a ‘trap’ to elicit that particular comment, no?

P.s. grumpy, you are a real gem – someone who was not sexist might have come up with the idea that the complainant was calling the shots, and did not let Goff take any action. But you are not, so you did not. If Worth is not half as bright as someone with half your intelligence is then it is no wonder this came about.

On the other hand she probably had at least her hands full looking after the leader.

Very doubtful indeed. If it was shown to be a rip-off he’d surely have been telling the media all about the Labour party dirty tricks (and rightfully so).

Glad you’re so sure that it’s all turning around on Goff. Its so clear it was a sting that Key is visiting the complainant.

Maybe he did investigate and found out that it was a rip off. In that case he may have acted slowly but understandably.

It may also be (as we are now seeing) that he predicted public opiniun and the media are now starting to turn on Goff in a clssic double scam.

It is becoming clear now that it was a sting and Worth was fired for being stupid enough to be compromised.

if this was as you state a honey-trap then there’s an issue to tackle. Why didn’t Key investigate it?

If your opponent warns you there may be dirt on one of your MPs you’d surely look to neutralise any possibility that it may impact on you.

Key should have gone to a lot more effort to make sure there was nothing here other than taking Worth’s word.

He did nothing at all which suggests either;

a. He’s too incompetent to make sure he knew this wouldn’t come back to haunt him or
b. He was covering for his mate and hoped it wouldn’t surface.

Not a good look either way.

If one of my staff members came to me and said that she was receiving unwanted approaches by somebody else in the workplace, I wouldn’t tell her to just continue taking a record of the phone calls and text messages. I would have a private chat to the person concerned and demand that behaviour ceased. As a manager I believe I would be not doing my job if I did anything else.

It appears Mr Goff didn’t do that. Instead he allowed the conduct to continue for five months, by his own explanation.

I can’t help but wonder whether it wasn’t in Mr Goff’s interest to allow it to continue, rather than intervening.

I’m not dumping on the complainant. It isn’t clear from her statement that she told Dr Worth to cease contacting her. If she were in a vulnerable position, then she may have felt uncomfortable saying this to him. I believe Mr Goff had a duty to take more active steps to intervene on her behalf. He certainly could have done so at a much earlier stage without resorting to publicising her details.

Perhaps if she hadn’t been strong enough to phone Mrs Worth, I’m sure one of Goff’s flunkies could have.