Colin Craig’s Contempt for His Victim

Written By: - Date published: 7:30 pm, June 22nd, 2015 - 113 comments
Categories: Abuse of power, colin craig, conservative party, sexism, workers' rights - Tags: , ,

Weirdo leader/funder/face of the Conservative party Colin Craig has admitted inappropriate behaviour with his former press secretary Rachel MacGregor.

Echoing the Parnell Ponytail Puller, he claims the conduct was not sexual.  Oh, and in talking about the matter at all, he admits that he has probably breached a confidentiality agreement negotiated with MacGregor. That breach is reprehensible behaviour; in fact a form of bullying because he knows his victim cannot answer back without breaching the agreement herself. MacGregor has only said so far that there are inaccuracies in Craig’s mea culpa. To say more risks being sued by Craig. Ironic, huh?

Craig gets a free shot to frame his sleaze as nothing more than minor mistakes that were made by both of them. To be clear, a rich man is willing to risk further litigation just to minimise his own pisspoor behaviour and to paint the victim as equally responsible for his weakness. Clearly, in his mind, she got what she deserved then and will continue to get whatever he thinks she deserves now. He even had the gall to outline MacGregor’s financial situation, as if her being out of a job was nothing to do with him.

Colin Craig clearly does not understand or perhaps does not care about the obvious power imbalance at play in his relationship with his former staffer. He was her boss. For most victims in similar situations, stopping the abuse means unemployment. It’s often easier to pretend its not happening just to get the bills paid. It’s not fair, it’s not normal and it’s not mutual.

What a small minded, self centred, cheap and vicious man Colin Craig has turned out to be. He really is the perfect Conservative. How will they ever replace him?

 

UPDATE: Rachel MacGregor tweets …


 

113 comments on “Colin Craig’s Contempt for His Victim ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. sabine 1
    22 June 2015 at 7:38 pm

    easy, go to any office into the managers corner and take your pick. More often then not they are white, middle to upper class, like their tea with milk and one sugar and are used to secreteries being as sumissive as their wifes, after all these girls need the money and can’t say no – becasue clearly the one thing you don’t want in our current times is become unemployed and depended on WINZ.

    Really where have you been latly, this shit is happening every single day in one form or antother in NZ. Sexual Harrasment, Bullying, Intimidation of women by men of power is regular business in NZ Offices and work places.

    It just does not happen for many until it is played out puplicly on TV or it happens to ones wife or daughter. Until then. Who cares, hey maybe she asked for it.

    (yes when it comes to that shit, i am angry, bitter and over it.)

    • Tracey 1.1
      23 June 2015 at 8:58 am

      I agree. Your statement broadly echoes my experience, The “C’mon I’m just joking with you” line gets boring it is heard so often. Brushing up against you, patting a bottom as you walk past, arm around shoulders with a squeeze that brushes the breasts. It seems in 2015 women are still required to adjust to the behaviour that some of their male colleagues consider is ok, rather than the other way around.

      Colin Craig has breached confidentiality in two specific ways;

      1. discussing settlement amounts (usually a BIG no-no in such settlements)
      2. discussing details of what was or was not admitted

  2. Ergo Robertina 2
    22 June 2015 at 7:43 pm

    The references to MacDonald should be changed to MacGregor.

    [Cheers. I really shouldn’t write while the TV’s on. Apparently the ads get in subliminally! TRP]

  3. mickysavage 3
    22 June 2015 at 7:55 pm

    Brave TRP. Craig likes to sue …

    But I was amazed when Craig said that both he and the press secretary agreed their relationship had been “inappropriate” …

    I felt very sorry for his wife.

    Ms Macgregor has struck back. From TVNZ (http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/factual-inaccuracies-former-press-secretary-speaks-after-colin-craig-denies-allegations-6343893)

    “This evening, Ms MacGregor issued a counter-statement saying Mr Craig had breached a confidentiality agreement reached during Human Rights Commission mediation.

    She said the pair were both bound by the agreement.

    “I am therefore unable to correct the clear factual inaccuracies contained in the statement Mr Craig made today without jeopardising my legal position,” she wrote.

    Ms MacGregor said she would detail the “inaccuracies” only if Mr Craig agreed not to prosecute her for breaching the agreement.

    “I am also willing to fully brief the Conservative Party Board on Mr Craig’s conduct but, again, this would require Mr Craig’s consent.””

    • te reo putake 3.1
      22 June 2015 at 8:07 pm

      Honestly and genuinely held opinion backed up with some sound legal assessment of the confidentiality agreement breach. I reckon I’ll be fine with a ‘fair comment’ style defence, MS.

      Or as a bloke in a wig once said:

      Would a fair-minded man holding strong views, obstinate views, prejudiced views, have been capable of making this comment? If the answer to that is yes, then your verdict in this case should be a verdict for the defendants. … Diplock, J.

      • mickysavage 3.1.1
        22 June 2015 at 8:11 pm

        I don’t doubt the judgment TRP!

      • The Chairman 3.1.2
        23 June 2015 at 10:12 am

        How would this post fair under the new bullying laws?

        • te reo putake 3.1.2.1
          23 June 2015 at 10:19 am

          What new bullying laws?

            • te reo putake 3.1.2.1.1.1
              23 June 2015 at 10:45 am

              According to Amy Adams, the post is fine. But thanks for your concern which I’m sure is 100% genuine.

              • The Chairman …
                23 June 2015 at 11:06 am

                Of course my concern is 100% genuine, this relates to our freedom of speech.

                From my understanding, under the new law truth is no defence.

                • te reo putake …
                  23 June 2015 at 11:22 am

                  Ok, sorry for the snark. The bill is intended to minimise harm, not stifle opinion. However, it’s poorly worded and as it currently stands, is pretty vague about what actions would be made illegal. Hopefully it’ll be tightened up before it gets through Parliament.

                  But to answer your original question, this post wouldn’t be covered. It’s an opinion piece about a public figure who first raised the central issue at a news conference. So, no worries there.

                  However, if the post gave out Colin’s home address and invited readers to pop round and let him know what they think, that would be clearly problematic.

                  An amended version of the bill here: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2013/0168/9.0/whole.html

                  • The Chairman …
                    23 June 2015 at 2:18 pm

                    Being an opinion piece is no protection from the law.

                    Nor is the fact that Craig is a public figure.

                    It will largely come down to whether or not he is harmed or emotionally distressed by your comments.

                    And with that understanding, one can quickly see the concern with the new law.

                    • te reo putake …
                      23 June 2015 at 4:43 pm

                      Not so. The concern is that it won’t achieve its aims because, at present, it’s poorly put together. It does not do away with the usual free speech defences. For example, as it currently reads, harm means serious emotional distress. A politician is going to have a hard time proving that occurred as a result of a blog post. We know this because of case law, which has already set a high threshold for such public figures.

                      Have a read of the bill. There are reasons that it needs changing, but it’s not the repeal of free speech.

    • Skinny 3.2
      22 June 2015 at 8:43 pm

      Having dealt with Macgregor I can confirm she is a fucking nutter. No political press secretary screams at her dog while on a phone call having rung you in their professional role. None.

      • te reo putake 3.2.1
        22 June 2015 at 8:53 pm

        Hmmm, not sure that’s entirely relevant Skinny. This post is about yet another Tory politician misusing his power and position.

        And, well, this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al7XJxlDoyQ

        And, of course, this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUEuKrRrA-8

        • maui 3.2.1.1
          22 June 2015 at 9:18 pm

          It’s always good to have as much information as possible so people can make up their own minds on what’s going on in my view.

      • weka 3.2.2
        22 June 2015 at 9:26 pm

        “Having dealt with Macgregor I can confirm she is a fucking nutter. No political press secretary screams at her dog while on a phone call having rung you in their professional role. None.”

        Even if that were true, what does it have to do with this post?

        • Lanthanide 3.2.2.1
          22 June 2015 at 9:40 pm

          Skinny’s just big-noting again.

          • Skinny 3.2.2.1.1
            22 June 2015 at 9:54 pm

            The score keeper pipes up good to see your taking notes pencil dick!

            @ Weka poor little red riding hood and the evil wolf.

            Agreed Craig isn’t very smart considering there was a mediation settlement. Dig into those deep pockets Col looks like Macgregor has got you again.

            • Stephanie Rodgers 3.2.2.1.1.1
              22 June 2015 at 11:26 pm

              This kind of pointless personal abuse of other commenters and mud-slinging about someone who’s bound by a confidentiality agreement (and sticking to it, unlike the other side) is really needless, petty, and bordering on trolling.

              Smarten up, Skinny.

        • maui 3.2.2.2
          22 June 2015 at 9:50 pm

          It’s a view of the character of the victim. The victim is mentioned multiple times in the post, so I can’t see how it would not be relevant. When forming an opinion you need a picture of all parties involved don’t you?

          • te reo putake 3.2.2.2.1
            22 June 2015 at 9:54 pm

            No, not at all. That’s not a million miles away from asking a rape victim what she was wearing or whether she was a virgin. The actual issue is the behaviour of the person with the power.

            • Zorr 3.2.2.2.1.1
              22 June 2015 at 9:59 pm

              Not just that but I can understand how anyone talking to Skinny would be driven to distraction very quickly.

              Remember that the way in which we characterize others often speaks more to who we are than who they are. You are trusting Skinny’s characterization of MacGregor rather than just looking at the details of the case which show, yet again, another powerful white male acting like the world and all the people in it belong to him.

              • marty mars …
                22 June 2015 at 10:19 pm

                + 1 Great comment

              • maui …
                22 June 2015 at 10:26 pm

                Yeh I am taking Skinny’s word for it that you wouldn’t call someone a “fucking nutter” for no good reason. But then again this is an anonymous blog so maybe I shouldn’t have been so trusting.

                • Zorr …
                  22 June 2015 at 10:31 pm

                  The fact that they are willing to use that language to characterize someone else as a primary description speaks to their trustworthiness as a source of character judgement. If they were someone to listen to on this, they would have been more explicit in outlining who MacGregor was than immediately stooping to hurl a personal insult/slur regarding her professionalism.

                • te reo putake …
                  22 June 2015 at 10:32 pm

                  Maui, there’s no problem taking Skinny’s word for this anecdote. Skinny organised a candidates meeting last election, so I guess that’s when the phone call occurred.

                  • maui …
                    22 June 2015 at 11:02 pm

                    I tend to be cautious about making up my mind on things, I also tend to keep an open mind/give people the benefit of the doubt until the evidence is undeniable. I think it’s abhorrent what Craig did, but thought there might be something more to this story, but I don’t think there is now. Cheers for the post 🙂

                  • Skinny …
                    22 June 2015 at 11:15 pm

                    That’s right cobbah, and put in context it was 6.30 pm on a Sunday and Macgregor tried abit of a veil threat when she didn’t get her way which was Craig on stage with Peters, Norman & Parker. The dog scream didn’t come with an apology, just a laugh and a… oh well you get that when your undemocratic, after I questioned her professionalism.

                    • Tracey …
                      23 June 2015 at 9:03 am

                      So, a woman who yells at her dog (presumably cos it is barking or getting into something it shouldn’t ) while she is on the phone can’t be sexual harassed or inappropriately treated by her boss? And that makes her a “fucking nutter”

                      Interesting world view skinny.

                    • Skinny …
                      23 June 2015 at 10:02 am

                      @Tracey My comment has ‘nothing what so ever’ to do with her sexuality. Common courtesy is to cover the phone not deliberately scream down it on the top of her lungs, laugh thinking it was a great joke. It hurt my ears as intended. In my opinion she didn’t like my reasons for the rejection hence the hissy fit.

                    • Tracey …
                      23 June 2015 at 1:01 pm

                      who talked about sexuality? She lacks courtesy so she is a “fucking nutter”, you realise that some of your posts lack courtesy, does that make you a “fucking nutter”?

            • maui 3.2.2.2.1.2
              22 June 2015 at 10:21 pm

              I don’t how the police investigate but I imagine they would look at the character of both parties involved, the offender and the victim. Was there anything that led to the offence? Or was it unprovoked? What was the relationship? etc. It would not be ok, you committed this offence you’re in the slammer, no questions asked.

            • Tracey 3.2.2.2.1.3
              23 June 2015 at 9:01 am

              I also like to keep an open mind BUT at this stage it is all very one-sided because Craig has chosen to breach the agreement by stating the amount of settlement, how much one party wanted for settlement, and with details about what did or did not happen. IF Ms MacGregor had breached the agreement I would have a little more sympathy for those who seek to bring her character into question, but she didn’t, so I don’t.

            • JanM 3.2.2.2.1.4
              23 June 2015 at 9:07 am

              + 100

  4. ropata 4
    22 June 2015 at 8:38 pm

    I have previously blogged that colin craig is an ignorant fool but now I realise I was being too charitable. He’s a lying entitled sleaze. Perhaps the Conservatives would be better off with Bob Jones as leader

  5. adam 5
    22 June 2015 at 9:39 pm

    These Tory scum just don’t stop with their continued depravity.

    Craig had the gall to go after the Christian vote, obviously whilst acting in the most unchristian like manner.

    Then he compounds his behaviour, by trying to defend his own vanity.

    Time to take a whole lot of time out Mr Craig, stop and read the Gospels son.

    You obviously now just working for the deceiver, like that other Tory creep, Slatter.

    • ropata 5.1
      22 June 2015 at 10:04 pm

      There’s an old adage among Christian pastors: “Don’t trust a leader who walks without a limp”

      In other words, humility is evidence of a person who accepts their human failings and unlikely to fall into the traps of arrogance and egoism.

    • JeevesPOnzi 5.2
      23 June 2015 at 11:15 am

      God, or the ‘Deceiver’- both the stuff of Tory deceit.
      Both imaginary friends to those who find reality too truthful.

      • adam 5.2.1
        23 June 2015 at 2:03 pm

        Look, another smug atheist.

        • JeevesPOnzi 5.2.1.1
          30 June 2015 at 1:44 pm

          How’s your babe Eve doin these days- and how’s your rib doing in her side?
          And hows the talking snake?
          And the angels?
          And their two sons……. and all the kids their two sons had together.

          And how’s the god fella doing on his cloud- that’s right- the guy who created brain cancer for kids, and disease and suffering.

          And how’s Jesus doin Adam?
          THat’s right- the guy who could have told people that if they washed their hands and boiled their water the death rate would have been decimated- but he preferred turning water in wine- and fixing lepers.

          And you think I’m smug?

          You dumb fucktard

      • ropata 5.2.2
        23 June 2015 at 11:29 pm

        Jesus ain’t no Tory

  6. BerylStreep 6
    22 June 2015 at 10:12 pm

    What a scumbag. I’m glad he didn’t make it into parliament and the govt didn’t throw him a life line. I hope Rachel MacGregor takes him to the cleaners.

    • cogito 6.1
      22 June 2015 at 11:31 pm

      “I’m glad……….. the govt didn’t throw him a life line”

      Why, do you think Key is any better?

      • Tracey 6.1.1
        23 June 2015 at 9:03 am

        exactly. Craig was campaigning as the self appointed conscience and moral compass of this very government.

  7. David H 7
    22 June 2015 at 11:36 pm

    “I hope Rachel MacGregor takes him to the cleaners.”

    Her and his Lawyers. They must be loving this. Bill Colin Dumass another 50k for …

    • RedBaronCV 7.1
      23 June 2015 at 7:53 am

      And Colin’s wife made some interesting comments – is she entitled to dee the terms of the settlement?

      • te reo putake 7.1.1
        23 June 2015 at 8:13 am

        Technically no, RB, unless she was a party to the deal. However, there has been a recognition in NZ law that it’s unrealistic to expect a spouse not to be made aware of at least the financial aspects. However, she has no right to talk about the detail in public.

  8. Puckish Rogue 8
    23 June 2015 at 8:21 am

    Good call from Sir John Key to not do a deal with the conservatives prior to the election

    • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1
      23 June 2015 at 8:28 am

      Was it? His endorsement of Sabinism suggests it was mere dumb luck.

      • Puckish Rogue 8.1.1
        23 June 2015 at 9:01 am

        It was, Whaleoil was banging on for months before the election about why Colin was bad news and that National should keep away

  9. vto 9
    23 June 2015 at 8:42 am

    blather from the left

    blather from the right

    stuck in the middle with blathering

  10. dv 10
    23 June 2015 at 8:43 am

    And now Craig wants to lift the confidentially agreement

    • Puckish Rogue 10.1
      23 June 2015 at 8:53 am

      Well he says he wants to

      • dv 10.1.1
        23 June 2015 at 9:08 am

        My guess Craig will now say she won’t let me lift it.!!!

        • Puckish Rogue 10.1.1.1
          23 June 2015 at 9:15 am

          Yeah i don’t think the confidentiality agreement is getting lifted anytime soon (though I would love to be proved wrong, in this instance)

          • Tracey 10.1.1.1.1
            23 June 2015 at 9:21 am

            If I were her I wouldn’t. I would say my lawyers have advised me not to, and to seek damages from Craig for his blatant breach. That he is in the public eye is not a defence to his breach. It is yet another sign that his skin is too thin for politics. He could have played this so differently. For example stating that while he would like to speak to the specifics he honours the legal system of NZ and the rights of both he and Ms MacGregor to keep the details private as per their mutual agreement. He will not break the legal or moral obligation he made to satisfy the salacious need to know of some of the NZ public.

  11. Tracey 11
    23 June 2015 at 9:04 am

    The parallels with Roger Sutton’s (CERA) press conference are scary.

    • Puckish Rogue 11.1
      23 June 2015 at 9:12 am

      and Len Brown as well

      Which is something I don’t get I mean it hasn’t worked out well for any of the above yet hes using the strategy

      • Tracey 11.1.1
        23 June 2015 at 9:27 am

        No, Len Brown’s is not similar to this PR. AFTER eing caught in an extra marital affair he told his wife in private and then made a public statement about HIS behaviour.

        There is no evidence of a consensual sexual relationship with the victim of Sutton or Craig. In fact the contrary seems to be the case, that the male wanted more than the victim wanted to give OR the male wanted to be able to “fiddle” about verballly and physically with a woman without her consent and everything to be ok cos he was only having “fun”. Both men signed confidentiality agreements and then breached them (one with a member of the current government in tow), to satisfy their own agendas.

        Did Len Brown attack the victim and breached a confidentiality agreement? Nope.

        From my memory the people dragging Len Brown’s consenting sexual partner through the mud were WO and Weegee the people purporting to be her friends, not Len Brown.

        So while Len Brown’s behaviour may be abhorrent to people on other basis he is NOT comparable to Sutton and Craig as you suggest.

        • Puckish Rogue 11.1.1.1
          23 June 2015 at 9:36 am

          Len also brought his wife front and center, there was information released to the public that did not come from Whaleoil (how many spin doctors does Len Brown have?) designed to tarnish Bevan

          So yes he used his position to have sexy times, used his position to (probably) tarnish the victim and then, when all else fails, dragged his wife and kids into it as well

          Thats what I’m mainly referring to, using ones wife and kids to almost hide behind whereas someone like the Cunliffe kept his wife and kids out of it as much as possible (something I respect him for)

          • te reo putake 11.1.1.1.1
            23 June 2015 at 9:43 am

            “there was information released to the public that did not come from Whaleoil (how many spin doctors does Len Brown have?) designed to tarnish Bevan”

            And your proof that the information came from Len Brown is what exactly? Given that his response was complete and humiliating openness with no malice whatsoever toward the woman concerned makes me think you’re leaping to an unwarranted conclusion.

            • Puckish Rogue 11.1.1.1.1.1
              23 June 2015 at 9:48 am

              Complete and humiliating openess? You mean his hug fest on Campbell? The guy stood on family values but its ok because hes really, really sorry, yeah right sorry he got caught is all

              • te reo putake …
                23 June 2015 at 9:51 am

                Yep, that’s it. Unlike the current Tory examples, Brown fessed up, didn’t try and minimise his errors or blame anyone else. He was genuinely remorseful and accepted responsibility 100%. Sutton, Key, Craig … not so much.

              • Tracey …
                23 June 2015 at 9:53 am

                I agree he was only sorry he got caught but that doesn’t make the situation the same as Craig and Sutton.

                That you dont see the issue of consent as a big differentiating factor bothers me

                • Puckish Rogue …
                  23 June 2015 at 10:15 am

                  Now you’re just being silly

                  • Tracey …
                    23 June 2015 at 10:19 am

                    you are, again avoiding the issue and the questions. Where is your link/source to the notion you proffered that Len Brown smeared his consenting sexual partner once he was found out? Until you do that you are comparing apples with oranges because you dislike Len Brown.

                    This is about far ore than using wives to shield misdemeanors, especially as Brown didn’t use his wife as a way to deny the allegations, as Sutton and Craig did.

                  • Psycho Milt …
                    23 June 2015 at 1:47 pm

                    You think the idea that consent matters is “silly?” That certainly explains your comments, but is nevertheless seriously fucked up.

            • Tracey 11.1.1.1.1.2
              23 June 2015 at 9:49 am

              Leaving aside the rights or wrongs morally of Brown’s actions, I worry that people do not see sufficient difference between Brown situation and Sutton/Craig situation.

              • Puckish Rogue …
                23 June 2015 at 10:16 am

                Yes there are differences but there also similarities or are you deliberately being obtuse?

                • Tracey …
                  23 June 2015 at 10:24 am

                  Not at all

                  I wrote

                  “The parallels with Roger Sutton’s (CERA) press conference are scary.

                  You replied

                  Reply
                  Puckish Rogue 11.1
                  23 June 2015 at 9:12 am
                  and Len Brown as well

                  Which is something I don’t get I mean it hasn’t worked out well for any of the above yet hes using the strategy”

                  The extent of your comparison of similarities is that Brown took his wife to a press conference and your unproven assertion that Brown smeared his consenting partner (still no link or source posted by you to back this). We ca’t reasonably take into account the unproven smear allegation until you prove it..

                  So, to you, having his wife at a press conference (having previously told her in public the media claims of his consenting affair were correct) is enough similarity to make the conversation become about Len Brown,

                  Wheraes I was comparing Craig to Sutton who also:

                  1. resigned because of inappropriate behaviour toward a woman (non consensual);
                  2. entered into a confidentiality agreement with her;
                  3. wilfully broke the agreement for his own ends;
                  4. took his wife to a press conference where he belittled the vitcim by playing down what he had done and getting his wife to announce her support for him

                  So no I am not being deliberately obtuse, are you?

                  • Puckish Rogue …
                    23 June 2015 at 11:17 am

                    The problem is the person with the most information on this is the journalist that was first contacted and broke the story but the poepl on here have an irrational hatred of Cameron Slater and thus won’t bother to go to his site

                    • lprent …
                      23 June 2015 at 11:58 am

                      Perhaps you should define irrational?

                      The arsehole “journalist” attempted to hire at least one person to break into this site to get information on authors and commenters. In the past, this same arsehole wanted similar personal information to blackmail journalists.

                      I and just about everyone else here would expect that if he had found such data, then he would have engaged in a attempt to intimidate and blackmail.

                      If he acts like an underhanded criminal arsehole, then that is how he defines himself.

                      Avoiding giving him peoples IPs and emails seems quite rational to me.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      23 June 2015 at 12:58 pm

                      Do you have proof of what you say?

                    • te reo putake …
                      23 June 2015 at 1:04 pm

                      Jeez, you been hiding under a rock for the last ten tears, PR? All of the things LP has mentioned are in the public domain. Heck, somebody even wrote a book about it. Dirty something, I forget.

                    • Tracey …
                      23 June 2015 at 1:07 pm

                      you are looking like you have a hate for Len Brown and so have been unable to see the point I am making vis a vis sutton and craig, even though I have spelled it out pretty clearly.

                      I don’t hate Slater but won’t dignify his site with my click. I don’t trust him because of his behavior, eg posting things as his own when someone else wrote them, attacking dead folks for his own purposes, selectively suing and breaking laws, his general demeanor toward humans because he doesn’t like them, using prostitutes to try to get dirt on people he doesn’t like, there are so many things…

                      NOT irrational hatred but earned distrust which for reasons you are entitled to, you gloss over and choose to ignore, to the extent that your focus in this thead and to me has rarely been on further attacking Brown rather than addressing the proven facts, which is all I have focused on in my numbered points above.

                    • Tracey …
                      23 June 2015 at 1:08 pm

                      PR about proof…

                      Yes there is some evidence, and Mr Slater denies it is correct. He has said he can disprove it, but hasn’t.

          • Tracey 11.1.1.1.2
            23 June 2015 at 9:48 am

            “there was information released to the public that did not come from Whaleoil (how many spin doctors does Len Brown have?) designed to tarnish Bevan”

            link/source?

            Do you consider that 1 involving a consensual relationship and 2 not is not a big enough factor to seperate them?

            • Puckish Rogue 11.1.1.1.2.1
              23 June 2015 at 10:20 am

              The link is to check the blog that broke the story and did the leg work in the first place, its still all there all you need to do is look…

              • Tracey …
                23 June 2015 at 10:26 am

                It’s not my claim PR, couldn’t you post it here, it’s your assertion? But do understand it needs to be a donot url.

                Your evidence is more than just Cameron Slater said so, right? Cos an inquiry (independent) found he has a tendency to exaggerate his work to make himself seem important?

                • Puckish Rogue …
                  23 June 2015 at 11:04 am

                  Just like every other journalist really

                  • Tracey …
                    23 June 2015 at 1:09 pm

                    nope. That’s a cheap cop out by someone who cannot prove his assertion and isn’t “man” enough to retract it..

        • JeevesPOnzi 11.1.1.2
          23 June 2015 at 11:19 am

          I didn’t think there was any evidence of a sexual ‘relationship’ in either the Sutton or Craig issues…..

  12. Tracey 12
    23 June 2015 at 9:07 am

    “He said most of his statements in yesterday’s press conference were worded by his lawyers.

    “Look, I’m not going to go into the details of the relationship in any way unless confidentiality is lifted,” He told RNZ.”

    Then someone should complain to the Law Society for the Law firm willfully being party to, or drafting, a breach of confidentiality. By discussing what Ms MacGregor allegedly sought in damages and then stating what she actually received, it seems an open and shut case of breach of the settlement agreement (if the lawyers wrote that part).

  13. JanM 13
    23 June 2015 at 9:17 am

    We seem to have hurtled straight back to the 60s where women just learnt to keep calm and carry on in the face of sexist (and sexual) abuse., as they knew that any attempt to complain would be thrown back at them as if it were their own fault. So much for progress!

    • Tracey 13.1
      23 June 2015 at 9:30 am

      Interestingly Jan, from my memory, Len Brown didn’t seek to smear or belittle his consenting sexual partner publicly (am happy to be corrected), Sutton and Craig have intentionally breached a confidentiality agreement to paint their victim (not partner) in a particular way to lesson their own behaviour.

      It does rather make the cynical me wonder if both men did it to ensure no other victim would come forward for fear of, as you say, being publicly made out to be a sexual predator or someone who can’t take a joke.

      • JanM 13.1.1
        23 June 2015 at 9:36 am

        They may well have, and for that matter, it’s going to take a brave woman falling victim to the hairpulling one to make a fuss after the way the last one was treated.
        I agree about Len Brown – he didn’t do any public attacking, and I don’t feel as though his behaviour arose so much from a sense of entitlement as being a silly old chook

  14. Sable 14
    23 June 2015 at 10:20 am

    The right never ceases to disappoint……

  15. Clemgeopin 15
    23 June 2015 at 10:31 am

    Here is the thing that has bothered me about this saga :

    [1] The agreement between Craig and McGregor was supposed to be ‘confidential’. So, who leaked the details and why?

    [2] John Stringer seems to be on a public crusade against Craig. Why?

    [3] MacGregor posted on Twitter: “Colin Craig is trying to frame me as a mistress.
    There was never a sexual relationship…”

    I don’t think Craig framed her as a ‘mistress’ in the interview. Craig did say there wasn’t any ‘sexual relationship’. Therefore, not sure why in this context she had to state that ‘There was never a sexual relationship…’

    Regarding [1] who has (and is) creating all the mischief from the shadows and why? How did that ‘poem’ and other details get to the media? Is Craig just a bit trusting and naive or is he a crook and a bad guy? Lots of questions.

    • JanM 15.1
      23 June 2015 at 11:35 am

      Am I right in thinking that Colin Craig started this party with his own money? If so, is he now being tossed out on his ear by a cuckoo in the nest?

      • Clemgeopin 15.1.1
        23 June 2015 at 12:08 pm

        Yes, he started it with a lot of his own money ($4 million!) and plenty of hard work. To me he comes across as naive, a little too trusting and above all, poorly advised.

        Hard to say as we do not know all the details. My gut instinct is that he is not a crook or a bad guy.

        • Tracey 15.1.1.1
          23 June 2015 at 1:13 pm

          if he has sexually harassed a woman does that make him a “bad guy”, just asking not assuming he has.

          • Clemgeopin 15.1.1.1.1
            23 June 2015 at 1:29 pm

            Yes, it does, but can not say for sure the degree of how bad. It all depends on truth and facts and if the sexual harassment did take place or not And if it really was sexual harassment or not? Again hard to know as it is subjective and without details.

            • Tracey 15.1.1.1.1.1
              23 June 2015 at 1:32 pm

              I agree and hence I believe he should have taken the higher ground and stopped the salacious seeking in its tracks by refusing to fan the flames but he just couldn’t help himself.

              See how Stuff (FareFix) has framed Rankin’s resignation? They are determined to make this about sex as opposed to sexual harrassment, even though their article refers only to inappropriate behaviour. Bear in mind it seems Ms MacGregor was a consultant not an employee so the use of Humans Rights legislation rather than empoyment .

    • Tracey 15.2
      23 June 2015 at 1:12 pm

      Until he said there was no sexual relationship yesterday there had been that inference.. and certainly an inference, imo, of some kind of mutual flirtation, which suggests a consenting sexual overtone…

      He could have taken the moral high ground Clem, and told the media that there was a confidential agreement,t hat he wouldn’t breach that not even to save his own skin because it was the correct legal and moral thing to do… and so, but he didn’t… he decided that he was looking bad and that he was going to change that perception, notwithstanding the legality or morality of that.

      • Clemgeopin 15.2.1
        23 June 2015 at 1:57 pm

        You have a point and I tend to agree with you, but again not 100% sure because we do not know what was in the agreement and what wasn’t. That Craig was hounded and was under enormous pressure from all sides (the journalists, the board, the blogs, the media, leakers, his friends, his enemies, his family, his party voters etc) is obvious. I do feel some sympathy for him from what I have seen so far, though I think he was unwise to have indulged in any kind of unprofessional conduct towards his staff. But without knowing all the true facts to judge someone as guilty, innocent, perpetrator or victim is unfair.

        I wonder if close proximity between a boss and secretary loosens the boundaries, causes behavioural amnesia little by little over time, drawing both towards dangerous territories.

        Scores of cases come to mind.

        • JanM 15.2.1.1
          23 June 2015 at 4:58 pm

          It’s really difficult to sort fact from fiction here. I myself have been railroaded out of a management position by false accusations by people who fully understand that starting a false and unprovable rumour will in the end stick if they persist and they do not have any care at all for the reputation of the person they are accusing as long as they get their own way.
          The people who did this to me belong to a charitable group with a good reputation (apart, that is from a high percentage of the people unfortunate enough to have been employed by them).

          • Clemgeopin 15.2.1.1.1
            23 June 2015 at 5:38 pm

            Sorry to hear about your own personal experience. That is gut wrenching, destructive and never pleasant. Hope things are better for you now. Cheers.

            • JanM 15.2.1.1.1.1
              23 June 2015 at 6:13 pm

              Thanks, Clemgeopin, I’m fine, but I know other people ho can’t recover from such wickedness.
              I was really wondering whether a version of that was being visited on Colin Craig, however, he seems to have sort of come out on top of it all – time will tell. Don’t like the man, but no-one deserves that treatment if that is what happened.

              • Clemgeopin …
                23 June 2015 at 6:38 pm

                Me too, not a fan of Colin Craig and his party, but the way that guy, John Stringer has behaved is pretty nasty, dirty, disgusting and unfair in my opinion.

        • JanM 15.2.1.2
          23 June 2015 at 4:58 pm

          It’s really difficult to sort fact from fiction here. I myself have been railroaded out of a management position by false accusations by people who fully understand that starting a false and unprovable rumour will in the end stick if they persist and they do not have any care at all for the reputation of the person they are accusing as long as they get their own way.
          The people who did this to me belong to a charitable group with a good reputation (apart, that is from a high percentage of the people unfortunate enough to have been employed by them).

        • JanM 15.2.1.3
          23 June 2015 at 4:58 pm

          It’s really difficult to sort fact from fiction here. I myself have been railroaded out of a management position by false accusations by people who fully understand that starting a false and unprovable rumour will in the end stick if they persist and they do not have any care at all for the reputation of the person they are accusing as long as they get their own way.
          The people who did this to me belong to a charitable group with a good reputation (apart, that is from a high percentage of the people unfortunate enough to have been employed by them).

      • Clemgeopin 15.2.2
        23 June 2015 at 2:04 pm

        Do you have comments about my 3 points at #15?

        LINK :
        http://thestandard.org.nz/colin-craigs-contempt-for-his-victim/#comment-1033541

  16. Sacha 16
    23 June 2015 at 6:21 pm

    For background flavour, this Metro magazine profile of Colin Craig is interesting:
    http://www.metromag.co.nz/current-affairs/uncle-colin/

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.