Should Key have appointed Worth at all?

104 comments on “Should Key have appointed Worth at all? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. calltoaccount 1

   7 June 2009 at 12:16 pm

   Words fail really. Absolutely stunned…
2. tsmithfield 2

   7 June 2009 at 12:24 pm

   I think we also need to consider what Goff could have done.

   We have already been discussing whether Goff had a moral responsibility to intervene despite the womans desire to keep this confidential. I accept that many here believe that it is better to let someone suffer the ongoing psychological trauma of it all rather than lift a single finger to stop the abuse.

   But, Goff could easily have given the woman advice to stop Worth from pestering her. All he had to do was tell her to tell Worth, next time he rang, to FO and that she would be recording all telephone calls from him and keeping all text messages from this point on. That would have stopped Worth in his tracks WITHOUT any need to take the matter further. I think a person with an IQ in double figures would have known to give this advice. So, why didn’t Goff, given that his IQ probably exceeds double figures?
   • forgetaboutthelastone 2.1

     7 June 2009 at 12:44 pm

     “I think we also need to consider what Goff could have done.”

     I think that their has been quite a fair amount of consideration of what Goff could have done (from you especially). So how about some consideration of what Key could have done? For the sake of balance, fairness etc.
     • tsmithfield 2.1.1

       7 June 2009 at 12:47 pm

       No. There is already plenty of criticism of Key going on here. I am focusing on Goff to bring balance.

       So, what about it? Why didn’t Goff give the advice recommended in my first post?
       • forgetaboutthelastone 2.1.1.1

         7 June 2009 at 12:52 pm

         err – coz he was considerate of the wishes of the alleged victim.

         So what exactly is your view on Key’s actions?
         • tsmithfield 2.1.1.1.1

           7 June 2009 at 1:04 pm

           Did you actually read what I said?

           Stop trying to treat Goff as holier than the Pope. Key has his failings. So does Goff.

           Read it again and then say something sensible.
         • forgetabouthtelastone 2.1.1.1.2

           7 June 2009 at 1:45 pm

           “Did you actually read what I said?”

           Ok you got me – no I didn’t even read what you said. And now I have I wish I hadn’t.

           “Key has his failings.”

           So can I assume from your arguments here and previously which are applied to Goff – that they would also apply to Key since he was in a similar position?
       • QoT 2.1.1.2

         7 June 2009 at 1:09 pm

         Balance? When your argument basically consists of “I know what this woman did or didn’t do and Phil Goff is at fault for not fitting in with my fantasy-world”? Balance because Phil Goff respecting a victim’s wishes is on the same level as multiple accusations of sexual harassment how?

         That being said, I’m really impressed by your ability to know what Phil Goff did or didn’t do. Is it a telepathic link you share, or nanobot surveillance technology from the future?
         • tsmithfield 2.1.1.2.1

           7 June 2009 at 1:14 pm

           Well, since the woman got 40 calls and 60 txts or whatever, if Goff gave her the advice she certainly didn’t heed it.

           Heck, she could have even recorded the calls WITHOUT warning Worth which would have given a lot more evidence now. I am sure Goff could have arranged to set this up for her if she wasn’t already able to do this.

           It doesn’t take a lot of nouse to work this out, so why didn’t it happen?
         • QoT 2.1.1.2.2

           7 June 2009 at 10:19 pm

           Yes, tsmithfield. Because of course stalkers/harassers/guys with no social skills are always so quick to stop all contact the instant a woman expresses disinterest. This is why we don’t actually need harassment laws at all! Ah, the conclusions we can come to when working with your displayed level of “nouse”.
         • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.2.3

           7 June 2009 at 11:11 pm

           ZOMG, tsmithfield is John Titor
         • Tim Ellis 2.1.1.2.4

           8 June 2009 at 11:05 am

           tsmithfield, perhaps Mr Goff tried to do exactly that, and give this woman some helpful advice on how to fend off Dr Worth’s advances. For all we know Mr Goff might have made every attempt to advise her, but each time he tried he got tongue-tied given her “striking beauty”.
   • George.com 2.2

     7 June 2009 at 9:25 pm

     Based on your logic, as soon as Key became aware of rumours about Worth harrassing women, whu didn’t he there and then take Worth aside and tell him to “FO” and demand to see a log of all Wroths txts. This would have stopped Worth harrassing the women and she would not have needed to go to Goff. So, once again blame comes back to John Key.
     So tell me, why didn’t Key sort Worth when aware of the rumours. Why did it have to come to Goff needing to intervene. Why didn’t Key do his job?
3. mike 3

   7 June 2009 at 12:24 pm

   “According to Goff, Key said that….

   and that’s where this post loses all credibility – the way Goff has changed his story on this one do we really believe anything that man says?
   • Scribe 3.1

     8 June 2009 at 1:55 pm

     Thanks mike. I was wondering how long I’d have to scroll down before someone pointed that out.
4. Anita 4

   7 June 2009 at 12:31 pm

   You have got to be kidding, are you seriously suggesting that people should be judged and punished for crimes that they have not committed (but might conceivably go on to)?

   There are many revolting sexual harassers who never go on to sexual assault or rape. Their actual behaviour (sexual harassment) is what should be addressed, they should be prevented from continuing to sexually harass. But to say they should be punished as potential rapists is ridiculous

   Your argument would mean that the Police should charge all protestors with every crime they can come up with so that the Police can’t be held responsible if one of them goes on to some worse crime (like, um, rescuing battery hens or chaining themselves to a railway track). I assume you think that would be a bad thing.
   • Eddie 4.1

     7 June 2009 at 12:36 pm

     No. Anita this is not a legal judgement and it’s not about whether Key should have known the behaviour might get worse.

     It’s about whether if he had acted as he should have when he should have in November he might have helped prevent worse events in the future.

     – hmm, I’ll add that to the post
   • calltoaccount 4.2

     7 June 2009 at 12:52 pm

     At one level you are absolutely correct, Anita. In practice, I think those around Worth who seem to have known (waaaay before your favourite target, TS) and been in a position to do something could have done a lot more to change the course of events, short of locking the guy up.
     • Anita 4.2.1

       7 June 2009 at 1:07 pm

       Oh, I am totally up for the idea that people should avoid letting men with icky actions toward women hang around with them, and should never promote men with icky actions toward women into positions of either leadership or power over women. But they should do that because of the existing icky actions toward women, not some hypothetical potential ickier actions.
     • RedLogix 4.2.2

       7 June 2009 at 1:24 pm

       Anita,

       Absolutely correct, but there is no suggestion here that anyone should have convicted or punished in advance of committing an offense.

       The core question is around Key’s judgement in promoting a man who already had a record of misusing his albeit modest power and stature as an MP, to the role of Minister…. where the temptation and consequence of Worth repeating such behaviour, would be so much greater.

       It would have one thing for Key to have appointed Worth as a Minister in good faith, and for Key to have been badly let down by Worth’s subsequent behaviour.

       But it really is quite another for Key to have rather recklessly appointed Worth as Minister in the knowledge that he was already a liability… and to then go on and defend the man….in the face of an emerging pattern of problems… right up to the last conceivable point of no return last Tuesday.

       As r0b said earlier in another thread, I too hate this whole affair. This is politics at it’s unsavoury, unappealing worst. I’m not going to comment on it again.
       • Anita 4.2.2.1

         7 June 2009 at 1:26 pm

         Concluding Key’s judgement was poor, and that’s why the last week has been so deservedly shit for him is one thing. Blaming him for Worth’s actions is a ridiculous other.
         • Eddie 4.2.2.1.1

           7 June 2009 at 2:07 pm

           Blaming for? No. Blaming for not intervening earlier and enabling? Yes.
5. Eddie 5

   7 June 2009 at 12:33 pm

   How has Goff changed his story? His strategy at all times in this has been to keep the woman’s affairs as private as possible and answer the media’s questions where he can.

   Today, he was asked for more detail on what Key told him about earlier ‘rumours’ of Worth’s activities. He explained that Key had said they were a reason Worth wasn’t made Speaker.

   There’s nothing inconsistent in that with his previous statements, it’s just more detail.

   You’re really struggling here, Mike. Might I recommend that you wait until Farrar comes up with a line and then just repeat that like you normally do?
6. gobsmacked 6

   7 June 2009 at 1:08 pm

   Sorry, but this is not a smart line to take. I’m sad to see it on the Standard.

   Key is responsible for plenty of failings. Not least his poor handling of Richard Worth as a minister, and in the period since. He has questions to answer, and he’s dodging them.

   But he is NOT responsible for any crime that may have been committed. The responsibility lies with the offender, if any such crime took place.

   The headline question is way over the top, and I do wish the Standard’s writers would stop doing this – taking a very legitimate issue and then stuffing it up by resorting to hyperbole. Get your antennae repaired – because they keep malfunctioning.
   • IrishBill 6.1

     7 June 2009 at 1:19 pm

     GS, agreed.
     • Eddie 6.1.1

       7 June 2009 at 2:06 pm

       Completely agree in retrospect. Sometimes you put in a placeholder and forget to come back to it.

       Better title now.
       • mike 6.1.1.1

         7 June 2009 at 3:50 pm

         That is one pathetic attempt to save face eddie..
         • Eddie 6.1.1.1.1

           7 June 2009 at 4:07 pm

           Cheers mike. That was, as always, an insightful comment that encourages further intelligent debate.
   • doc whose asking 6.2

     7 June 2009 at 2:37 pm

     He has questions to answer, and he’s dodging them.

     Thank you for this.

     Out of curiosity I ask in the event of a crime having been found to be done, would the PM’s prior lack of appropriate action amount to admission of his being a collateral damager..?
7. BDB 7

   7 June 2009 at 1:18 pm

   Yip the phallic stage.

   Eddie buy something very transparent to wear.
8. tsmithfield 8

   7 June 2009 at 1:38 pm

   So, did Goff advise the woman to tape the calls or not? Did he offer to help set up the capability to record the calls? Did he advise her to use the threat of taping the calls to ward Worth off?

   These are the steps a smart politician would suggest. Assuming that Goff is a smart politician, the advice and assistance was probably given.

   This being the case, why weren’t the calls taped? Was there some reason that the woman did not want the calls taped? What about the texts. Does she have copies of all the return texts she sent to him? Or have they all been deleted? If so, why?

   Some interesting questions.
   • doc whose asking 8.1

     7 June 2009 at 2:41 pm

     .. and marched them down again…
   • mickysavage 8.2

     7 June 2009 at 7:55 pm

     “So, did Goff advise the woman to tape the calls or not? Did he offer to help set up the capability to record the calls? Did he advise her to use the threat of taping the calls to ward Worth off?”

     Who cares?

     Goff has nothing to do with this.

     He offered the information privately to Key very generously so that Key could deal with a problem.

     He did not want to prove a thing. He wanted Key to do the right thing.

     Your posts read like the sort of thing lawyers have to dream up to try and prevent the guilty from being convicted.

     Goff was being a really dumb politician. He was trying to help an opposition MP through a difficult situation with no thought of political gain.

     I can see that you cannot understand this.
9. Hoolian 9

   7 June 2009 at 2:10 pm

   Do you know that the last 6 posts have been about Worth? You guys need to get a life.
   • Zittyisatit 9.1

     7 June 2009 at 2:49 pm

     Get a life…….. never .. the fight against the tory oppressors and boss class must continue till our last dying breath.
10. Cactus Kate 10

    7 June 2009 at 3:48 pm

    On this logic I actually blame Simpson Grierson for ever letting Worth quit and go into politics in the first place….obviously every woman he ever employed at Simply Gruesome was simply there for his own sexual amusement.

    He was Head Partner for f**** sake. Obviously used his power to get juniors under his desk……..

    Come on Stranded this is pathetic. Even for you guys. Every MP in Parliament comes with a reputation for something…..some deserved some undeserved. Right now Shane Jones has some adorable rumours circulating? Is Goff meant to investigate all 20 rumours that even I know about. How about Parekura Horomia? Same thing…then we have Cunliffe whose subject to rumour and conjecture.

    What’s a political leader meant to do? Listen to EVERY rumour about conduct that isn’t even illegal?
    • Anita 10.1

      7 June 2009 at 4:02 pm

      Cactus Kate writes,

      What’s a political leader meant to do? Listen to EVERY rumour about conduct that isn’t even illegal?

      Turning to the dark side for a moment and considering the politics and not the ethics, a political leader should keep an eye out for every rumour of conduct which could prove to be politically embarrassing.

      Whatever one might think of the ethics of it all, Key has spent the last few days paying the political price of ignoring the rumours about Worth’s conduct.
    • Eddie 10.2

      7 June 2009 at 4:05 pm

      A leader shouldn’t act on every rumour, of course not. But Key thought these rumours were credible enough that he acted on them – he said it was one reason Worth wasn’t made Speaker. So, given that he thought they had sufficient credibility to act on, shouldn’t Key have taken them into account and not appointed Worth as a minister?

      I made that clear in the post, Cactus. I thought you were a lawyer or something? If so, I shouldn’t need to be restating things to you that are contained in the post.
    • MikeG 10.3

      7 June 2009 at 5:09 pm

      You seem to forget that Shane Jones et al are NOT Ministers of the crown. Like it or not, if you are in Government you are under greater scrutiny, and expected to have higher standards than others.
11. rod 11

    7 June 2009 at 3:59 pm

    Way to go TS, and all you bluebottles. Shoot the Messenger!
12. Cactus Kate 12

    7 June 2009 at 5:40 pm

    Eddie

    I did read your post – particularly these words – “According to Goff, Key said” – in law we have a word for that sort of evidence…..go look it up.

    He said, she said, he said……..

    I don’t care what Goff said Key said to him. Goff’s backtracking, ducking and diving all over the place. First it was an email then a text…..first the woman has the texts, now she’s deleted some.

    Worth was never going to be made speaker. He was a poorly performing MP in opposition as it was.

    Anita

    Worth hits on young attractive women. Oh GOSH that’s a terrible thing…shoot the man. There are plenty of MP’s who have been made Ministers in Labour and National governments past and present with the same affliction. Again, rumours all over the place about all sorts of MP’s , some very senior…..

    The real question to Goff should have been why he let a woman endure this alleged terribly upsetting harassment for some 6 more months since finding out in November 2008 to when he informed Key in May?

    Were the Labour Party letting it go on to form some heavier sort of claim against Worth?
    • SPC 12.1

      7 June 2009 at 10:09 pm

      I would have thought the “political” issue was not about men and women, but about a person acting for the taxpayer using their position to personal advantage. It could have been jobs for money …

      Whereas the other matter is a criminal investigation one – possibly about actions beyond the legal in relationships …

      Bringing the dynamic of the male and female relationship into it, is a device to switch the issue from the publicly relevant to dog whistle an inference of “PC” (fast becoming a catch all for the right wing language of “one in all in” partisan politics).
13. forgetabouthtelastone 13

    7 June 2009 at 6:18 pm

    “The real question to Goff should have been why he let a woman endure this alleged terribly upsetting harassment for some 6 more months since finding out in November 2008 to when he informed Key in May?”

    Easy: he was respecting the wishes of the victim.
14. tsmithfield 14

    7 June 2009 at 8:07 pm

    Mickey Savage
    Who cares?

    Goff has nothing to do with this.

    Yes he did. By his own admission he was aware of the womans situation from as early as November 2008. Yet apparently Goff did nothing. The questions I asked stand.

    On Q&A Goff has said that the woman has deleted all the offensive texts. So the evidence dwindles further. How about the texts she sent back in response? I wonder if she still has those. No recorded phone calls, although I am sure she would have been advised to record them.

    So, now all we have is her word against his. Recent media reports point to the second woman having tried to scam other business men with similar accustations she is now making against Worth. Since the first person is a Labour Party member without any evidence, how do we know that we don’t have two women simultaneously scamming Worth?
15. forgetaboutthelastone 15

    7 June 2009 at 8:26 pm

    “By his own admission he was aware of the womans situation from as early as November 2008. Yet apparently Goff did nothing.”

    Yes – because he was respecting the wishes of the victim. It really is quite simple.
16. mike 16

    7 June 2009 at 8:40 pm

    “On Q&A Goff has said that the woman has deleted all the offensive texts. So the evidence dwindles further.”

    Really, how strange that just the incriminating ones would go missing? – just like the emails Goff assured us existed.

    Come someone please find out if this woman actually exists?
17. Pascal's bookie 17

    7 June 2009 at 8:53 pm

    By smitty’s own admission, he’s just trying to provide ‘balance’ by criticising Goff.

    So it doesn’t really matter that his accusations are based on ever stranger hypotheticals, or imaginings about how things might look if the facts were much worse, or whether or not the National party is a hotbed of, in his words, ‘sexual molestation’ as he would have us believe Goff should have known.

    It’s always Goff’s fault in his comments, not because he necessarily believes that to be so, or because that even follows from the facts and hypotheticals that he introduces, but because he is seeking some sort of equivalence. Something to shift attention from the fact of Key’s management. Key, who is the PM and has the authority over Worth.

    None of the actual content of his comments are important, even to him. His sole purpose is to provide ‘balance’, thus no matter how stupid you point out his logic to be, he will just repeat it, or invent some new crazy.

    All he is doing, by his own admission, is providing some ‘balance’ to the criticism of Key. Criticism which agrees is justified. That much he happily admits, arguing with him about it, or pointing out the irrelevance of his claims is pointless. He isn’t really concerned here with facts, but balance. Think about that.

    Moral cretinism.
18. Pascal's bookie 18

    7 June 2009 at 9:09 pm

    It’s pointless arguing about the host of unknowns. Even more pointless arguing about ‘what might have beens, ‘should have beens’ and ‘damned because they didn’ts’.

    We know that the complainant has written a statement and had it tabled in Parliament. Those claims have been repeated outside the house for days.

    Key claims Worth denied these claims when they were made privately and promised both an affidavit and defamation/libel suits. Since these claims have been made public, Worth is yet to even deny them as far as I know.

    How about we wait for his response and see what form it takes, and then start assessing credibility?
19. tsmithfield 19

    7 June 2009 at 9:18 pm

    My point is that despite Goff having known about this situation since November 2008, the woman doesn’t seem to have even been given good advice.

    She could have been advised to:

    Record all calls.
    Keep all texts.

    She has not been recording the calls. She has not been keeping the most important and incriminating texts. So it seems she has not been getting the advice from those such as Goff who should no better.

    Now she is in the situation she finds herself, either because she has not been getting the advice she needed, or she has been getting the advice but has not been keeping the records because those same records may incriminate her as well.

    I can’t see any other explanation for this strange state of affairs. Can anyone offer a different explanation that makes any sense?
    • Zaphod Beeblebrox 19.1

      7 June 2009 at 9:34 pm

      If Key had kept his mouth shut she would be a lot better off. Don’t know why he even mentioned her complaint.
    • Pascal's bookie 19.2

      7 June 2009 at 9:43 pm

      Explain the silence from Worth please smitty.

      You are running arguments that don’t fit with anything Worth has said, and that if true, would mean that Worth has a strong defence that he has not been making for the last few days. Occam’s razor suggests your imaginings are just that.

      Until Worth says something, you should probably just desist from making a potential arsehole of yourself.

      I could offer a number of explanations that would explain your scenario, but seeing it is based on hypothetical things that you think should have happened, followed by a narrow focus on a few of the things that have happened, ignoring much context, what would be the point?

      Afterall, by your own admission you are only saying these things to provide ‘balance’. Which is hardly a good faith position for debate. So fuck it.
      • tsmithfield 19.2.1

        7 June 2009 at 10:00 pm

        Pascal
        Explain the silence from Worth please smitty.

        You are running arguments that don’t fit with anything Worth has said,

        See the contradiction you have made in two congruent sentences, Pascal. No need for me to say more here on that point.

        I am trying to see things from Keys point of view to understand why he is so insistent on seeing the texts. You see, given the context, and the political support that should have been available to this woman, it is totally unacceptable that the evidence has vanished or was not recorded when the calls were coming in. No wonder he is suspicious. There is a very fishy smell about all this.
        • Zaphod Beeblebrox 19.2.1.1

          7 June 2009 at 10:14 pm

          Pity he never asked to see the texts before believing Worth. He’d be better off saying he (or his staff) regrets not doing a better investigation and leave it at that. He doesn’t need any other explanations to justify sacking his minister.
        • Pascal's bookie 19.2.1.2

          7 June 2009 at 11:27 pm

          See the contradiction you have made

          nah what I see is someone who is not arguing in good faith. (clue for the retard, that someone would be you. on both counts)

          Obviously, from the context of my last few comments the two sentences you quote mean:

          “Explain the silence from Worth please smitty.”

          means the silence since the accusations became public.

          and

          “You are running arguments that don’t fit with anything Worth has said,”

          means what we know of what Worth told Key. ie some form of denial.

          Please explain these supposed denials, and his later silence, given your theories about the complainant. Surely if there was anything wrong with the complainants statements, (ie some reason we should not be taking them at face value), Worth would have at least denied them since they became public. He promised lawsuits and an affidavit.

          Apply Occam’s razor. You seem to come up with any number of fanciful scenarios to put the blame on Goff. Worths silence should be a doddle mate.
          • tsmithfield 19.2.1.2.1

            8 June 2009 at 7:30 am

            I think your contradiction still remains, Pascal. Just because Worth hasn’t worn his heart on his sleeve to the media doesn’t mean that he hasn’t discussed the matter with Key. This may explain why Key is insisting on seeing the text record from the woman.

            Worth may have given information to Key that specifically contradicts the woman, and therefore, Key wants to see the text messages before going further.

            In her statement the woman said: “I am happy to provide copies of the text messages which I still have…” In making this statement, she is clearly referring back to text messages about going swimming etc. So according to her statement she has copies of these.

            Now, according to Goff, she only has some of these, and none of the incriminating ones. So the woman has been telling lies. Not only telling lies, but telling lies to Parliament, which is probably a serious offence, I would imagine.

            How about you apply Occams razor to the womans actions in deleting texts, her unwillingness to put up evidence, her telling proven lies, and the fact that the abuse ended in February, and it took until May for Gough to approach Key.

            Ball back in your court.
          • Pascal's bookie 19.2.1.2.2

            8 June 2009 at 8:47 am

            Utter bollocks smitty.

            There is no contradiction whatsoever in what I said. You are either being deliberately dishonest or you do not know what the word means.

            I am talking about the things we know.

            Key claims Worth denied the claims when they were made privately and promised both an affidavit and defamation/libel suits. Since these claims have been made public, Worth is yet to even deny them as far as I know.

            None of your ‘may haves’ and ‘could haves’ account for this. In fact they don’t make sense in light of Worth and key’s actions. Key has asked Worth to go public and explain his case. If Key has some info from Worth, why hasn’t he said so, instead of taking an ongoing and virtually unopposed pounding in the press?

            “I am happy to provide copies of the text messages which I still have ‘

            ‘which I still have’. That ‘which’ can apply to a number of things. It could just as easily mean “I am happy to provide those messages I still have”.

            Obviously she cannot provide the texts which she no longer has. She is willing to meet with Key. The idea that Key has suspicions about her are no reason not to meet with her and hear her side of the story. In fact, if he has evidence from Worth, then a meeting with the claimant would be an even more obvious thing for Key to do. But even without that, meeting with her is the best way to get her testimony. What are you suggesting might be the downside of meeting her?

            But all these ‘would haves’, ‘could haves’ and hypotheticals are pointless.

            Let’s just go on what we know. That is what you apply Occam’s razor to. That, indeed is what Occam’s razor is for. You accept the version of events that requires the least amount of hypothetical extra premises. You take the most simple explanation for the known facts.

            Introducing the idea that maybe Key has secret statements from Worth that for another secret reason no one has mentioned, is not using Occam’s razor, but rather, the Improbability Drive.

            A funnier, but far less respectable tool.

            In any case, in light of your ongoing failure to argue in good faith,. your wilfull twisting of facts and bizzare interpretaions of what various statements might mean, I may not bother responding further. I have no interest in your hypotheticals. Just talk about what we know.
20. coolas 20

    7 June 2009 at 9:25 pm

    If every Minister and shadow with a sexual sleaze component were to be exposed there wouldn’t be many left, including the Speaker. Could this be the beginning of a warm winter of slush. Its selling papers in the UK and bringing down the Govt – $$$ corruption there, not sex – but if it sells, media doesn’t matter what the vice. Maybe the Nats will hit back with a leak on Jones. Then a counter strike on Rodney’s lurid past. Bring it on so we can all feel smug & righteous.
21. Cactus Kate 21

    7 June 2009 at 9:32 pm

    Forgetabouthtelastone

    The harassment must have been like REALLY bad then if she told Goff but didn’t want him to do anything about it?

    Come on…..He had 6 months to tell Key or to act himself to get Worth to stop. She alleges the harassment was from 26 November to 23 February in her statement. What happened between 24th February and 6th May when Goff went to Key? More abuse? That Goff did nothing about?

    She said she “went to Phil Goff earlier this year because I wanted the contact with Mr Worth to stop”. Why did Goff wait until 6th May?

    The more Goff make political mileage of this the more it looks like an internal Labour set-up by a woman who was hot on the prospect of a cushy political appointment and at some point the offer went sour.
22. forgetabouthtelastone 22

    7 June 2009 at 9:59 pm

    “The harassment must have been like REALLY bad then if she told Goff but didn’t want him to do anything about it?”

    Well no – it may not have been so bad for a start and that would have been why she told Goff but didn’t want him to do anything about it. It seems the harassment escalated to a point where she did want Goff to do something about it.

    Anyways this is all just speculation on mine and your part so let’s just see how this one turns out.
23. SPC 23

    7 June 2009 at 10:00 pm

    Gotta hand it to Key, if what Goff said is true,

    So Key on hearing that Worth hits on young women, decides against making him Speaker, makes him Minister of Internal Affairs.

    This leaves the question, why would a person who hits on younger women be better placed at running Internal Affairs

    And why was Lockwood Smith chosen as Speaker …
24. Cactus Kate 24

    8 June 2009 at 12:03 am

    FATLO

    She wrote in her statement it stopped on February 23rd. This is best evidence as it’s directly from her and factual to a date. Goff and Key both state Goff went to Key on May 6th. So again, what happened in those intervening months? Did she suffer post traumatic text syndrome? Or did someone in the Labour Party suffer it for her?

    We may never know what was on the texts as the lady appears to have inconveniently lost them.

    SPC

    If the PM had to eliminate every man who was rumoured to have ever hit on young women, Cabinet may be simply full of female National MP’s. But then you wouldn’t like them either because I can’t think of one who behaves like a victim.
    • SPC 24.1

      8 June 2009 at 2:35 pm

      Oh my gosh, now the right wing apologist knows what those on the left like – just like Worth … (maybe he was simply use to right wing women/empoyees who performed for such inducements …)

      Now imagine this line used in a court case, well “I knew” that she would like it if I …

      As always, in the end, right wing women have to be sent in to do the dirty work their men could not get away with … – gut entitlement support for families ala Rankin …apologise for corruption by men abusing power …
25. forgetabouthtelastone 25

    8 June 2009 at 2:45 am

    “So again, what happened in those intervening months?”

    I don’t know, you don’t know. How about we speculate on how severely you were owned here? And here you are still peddling the same arguments. It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
26. grumpy 26

    8 June 2009 at 9:59 am

    It seems like the “lady” was instructed by Goff to try and get a job from Worth. Clearly if Worth had actually given her one (a job), that would be a VERY BIG ISSUE.

    Worthless smelt a rat and bailed out in February so Goff just had to run with what he had.

    Clearly, just a Labour Honeypot Sting badly handled.
    • Anita 26.1

      8 June 2009 at 10:05 am

      Wow, any evidence to support those accusations against her or are you just making shit up?

      You do, however, reinforce the point that a whole bunch of us have been making, that attacking the victim is de rigueur on the right, and that she was quite correct to be anxious about coming forward and opening herself up to this kind of attack.
27. tsmithfield 27

    8 June 2009 at 10:28 am

    Anita
    that she was quite correct to be anxious about coming forward and opening herself up to this kind of attack.

    No Anita.

    It is the fact that this woman is refusing to put up the evidence that is the reason she is being attacked.

    Let me remind you, in her own statement she sequentially offered to:
    1. Put up the evidence.
    2. Discuss the matter with Key.

    So why won’t she put up the evidence, Anita?

    Then, it turns out she’s deliberately destroyed the most incriminating stuff. Neither has she bothered to record the calls. This is hardly the behaviour of someone who has had close contact with, and undoubtably guidance from, the Labour spin machine from November last year, as can be reasonably inferred by comments to date from Goff and the woman’s statement.

    This sort of behaviour provides oxygen for those of us who can see other possible and plausible scenarios that could explain why a prominent National MP would make romantic advances to a female that he knew to be a Labour Party member. Under the scenario outlined by Labour, Worth was knowingly taking a huge risk in doing this.

    Something does not add up here, Anita.
    • mickysavage 27.1

      8 June 2009 at 10:52 am

      tsmithfield.

      If you think this is providing you with oxygen then I suggest you do not rely on it to breathe otherwise your time on this planet is short.

      Have you considered the possibility that the complainant and Phil Goff wanted to deal with the matter privately, discretely and without any thought of political advantage?

      Having read your posts I would say it is very apparent that you have not and that you are incapable of considering it as a possibility. Not a good way to get to the truth is is.
      • grumpy 27.1.1

        8 June 2009 at 11:54 am

        You have forgotten that it was Goff who made all this public.

        He claimed to have seen emails (which turned out not to exist)
        He claimed she wanted to meet the PM (which she now does not)
        He claimed to have her interests at heart (but knew about it since November and encouraged her to continue)

        ….and despite being donkey deep in the whole thing, Goff failed to ensure that the most incriminating “evidence” was kept.

        Why are they not showing it? Is it because they can’t do so without disclosing the communications sent to Worthless??

        The left have started this attack, stuffed it up and now want it to go away – it won’t.
        • Anita 27.1.1.1

          8 June 2009 at 12:14 pm

          grumpy writes,

          He claimed to have seen emails (which turned out not to exist)

          Evidence? This says you’re wrong.

          He claimed she wanted to meet the PM (which she now does not)

          Evidence? This says you’re wrong.
28. tsmithfield 28

    8 June 2009 at 11:59 am

    Micky
    Have you considered the possibility that the complainant and Phil Goff wanted to deal with the matter privately, discretely and without any thought of political advantage?

    Micky, the reason originally stated for Goff raising the matter privately was that the complainent wanted the harrassment to stop. Take a look at her own statement. The harrassment had stopped in February. Goff did not raise the issue until May 06.

    So, why raise the matter at all if what the women wanted (the harrassment to stop), had already stopped in February.

    Something is very fishy here.
29. JakeQuinn 29

    8 June 2009 at 12:05 pm

    Grumpy, you are incorrect. Key made both cases public. Goff then responded: as is pointed out on the post pingbacked at the foot of this post.

    …Mr Goff had been approached by media, not the other way around, in regards of the case of the Labour Party member who says she received offensive and lewd text messages and phone calls from Dr Worth.

    This morning on TVNZ?s Q+A Phil Goff explained that after Key broke the news of Mr Worth?s resignation, Key mentioned Goff?s complaint to journalists, who then when straight to Goff for comment.

    So Goff didn?t ?hang on it, waiting for the prime moment to drop it? as some have suggested. In fact he probably had no intention of going public with it at all, until Key and the media forced his hand.
30. grumpy 30

    8 June 2009 at 12:21 pm

    Really??? and I suppose that was not Goff on the TV every opportunity raving about how Key had “badly let this “stunningly beautiful” woman down, when he had let it continue from November?

    If what you say is true then Goff is even more incompetent than he appears. This was a first class legitimate scandal and he has muffed it.
    • Anita 30.1

      8 June 2009 at 12:24 pm

      You have an odd number of quote marks in your comment. What are the things you’re saying Goff actually said?
31. tsmithfield 31

    8 June 2009 at 12:22 pm

    Pascals Bookie
    “which I still have”. That “which” can apply to a number of things. It could just as easily mean “I am happy to provide those messages I still have”.

    Except, if she wanted to give that meaning, she could have easily said quite plainly:
    “I have deleted some of the texts because they were so offensive. However, I am happy to provide the texts I still have.”

    On the face of it her statement suggests she has all the texts. Do you dispute that?
    • Pascal's bookie 31.1

      8 June 2009 at 12:41 pm

      Obviously I do ts. I read it completely differently. She could have written it differently, true. She also could have written it in a way that meant only the interpretation you give to it. She didn’t though. So your claim of a proven lie no longer stands. Do you agree?

      About Worth’s silence? Any explanations that make sense?

      I put to you that perhaps he is waiting to see what texts she has so that he does not end up being caught in committing perjury in his denial. That would explain it.

      Gee, this hypotheticalising and arguing from motives is easy. Though pointless.
      • indiana 31.1.1

        9 June 2009 at 10:17 am

        …strange now she is having to retrieve these texts from Vodafone
32. tsmithfield 32

    8 June 2009 at 1:15 pm

    Pascal “So your claim of a proven lie no longer stands. Do you agree?”

    I can agree that your interpretation can be drawn from the statement, although I don’t agree that it is the plain and obvious interpretation. There is nowhere in her statement she says anything about having deleted any of the texts which adds weight to my interpretation. BTW this was a statement to parliament, so the onus was on her to ensure the statement was clear and unambiguous.

    What I think has happened is that the Labour spin doctors have assisted her with her statement. I think that particular sentence was deliberately crafted to have a possible alternative meaning. Thus, she can have the force in her statement of apparently having all the texts. Then if she is challenged to put them up, she has a fallback position of an alternative interpretation of the sentence.

    Pascal “About Worth’s silence? Any explanations that make sense?”

    If his silence is an issue, then so is the complainant’s refusal to put forward her evidence, even though in her statement she says clearly that she will put forward the evidence.

    So far he has made a statement that he absolutely denys that the said conversations took place and will swear an affidavit to that effect. The complainant has made a statement that they did occur. So, therefore, it is clear that someone is lying.

    The complainant needs to put forward the evidence. If the evidence shows a string of conversations with Worth, then clearly, that adds weight to own statement, even if the worst texts have been deleted. I really don’t see why she would not comply with the requirements of the PM. If you read her statement, this is what she actually offered in the first place.

    I note that the complainant also says she repeatedly made it clear to Worth that she didn’t want his attentions. I expect, on the balance of probability, some of those statements would have been in the form of text messages. I assume that such text messages would not have been deleted because they would not have been offensive to her, which is the criteria that the complainant had for deleting texts. I assume, therefore, that those texts should also be available and would add considerable weight to her story.
    • Pascal's bookie 32.1

      8 June 2009 at 1:26 pm

      The PM said he would meet with her. Now he is backing away. I see no reason for him not to meet with her.

      She has said she will provide him the evidence at such a meeting. She has said the texts alone aren’t the whole of it, therefore it is only reasonable that she be afforded the oppurtunity to put her whole case, rather than have to provide only the texts to some weird gatekeeper. A gatekeeper that initially failed to investigate her claims or get her side of the story at all.

      Given the rhetoric and smears about her coming from the right, and Key’s own suggestions that she is possibly not telling the truth, I think that it is only fair that she be given the oppurtunity. What possible downside is there?

      Worth promised an affidavit to Key. I trust he will be held to that. At the moment ts stands at a statement to parliament, and a promised but not delivered affidavit. Worth has not yet publically denied anything. His only denial so far has been in private and he has not delivered yet on the aspects of the denial that gave it force. I don’t think the sides are equivalent at this stage.

      It should be really simple for him to sign an affidavit of the type you suggest.
    • Pascal's bookie 32.2

      8 June 2009 at 2:03 pm

      I can agree that your interpretation can be drawn from the statement, although I don’t agree that it is the plain and obvious interpretation. There is nowhere in her statement she says anything about having deleted any of the texts which adds weight to my interpretation.

      I disagree here.

      This is what you quote her as saying:

      “I am happy to provide copies of the text messages which I still have ‘

      ”

      To get yur interpretation it should read thus;

      I am happy to provide copies of the text messages, which I still have ‘

      Without the comma the phrase is directly saying that the text messages she is prepared to provide are those that she still has, directly implying that there are others that she has deleted.

      Under your interpretation, there would be no need for the qualifying phrase at all, because we know what texts she is reffering to. All of them. That qualifier says what texts she is talking about; the ones she still has.

      Surely my interpretation is the plain reading, as your version contains either a missed comma or redundancy.
33. SPC 33

    8 June 2009 at 2:42 pm

    I wonder why the need for this evident attempt to show a willingness to intimidate any woman who comes forward … perhaps the Nats were/are aware of other matters relating to Worth unrelated to the police matter and the Labour Party woman referred to by Goff?
34. tsmithfield 34

    8 June 2009 at 2:53 pm

    Pascal’s Bookie:
    Without the comma the phrase is directly saying that the text messages she is prepared to provide are those that she still has, directly implying that there are others that she has deleted.

    Fair enough. I accept your point on this.

    Pascal’s Bookie “She has said she will provide him the evidence at such a meeting.”

    In her statement she says she is willing to provide the evidence AND meet the PM. If she was only prepared to do so at the time of meeting the PM she would have said she is willing to provide the evidence WHEN she meets the PM. The way she has phrased this sentence in her statement it suggests she is prepared to do either, or, or both.

    Since we are delving into the realms of semantics, do you accept my point here?

    I can see why the PM would want the texts vetted first. It is necessary to go through the formalities of ensuring the offending texts do actually tie back to Worth’s phone for instance. Remember, the PM is a busy person, so it would be an unnecessary waste of his time if it turned out that the texts didn’t even tie back to Worth’s phone.
    • Pascal's bookie 34.1

      8 June 2009 at 3:03 pm

      Thanks. I’ll take that as a withdrawall of the “she’s a proven liar’ smear, if that’s ok?

      “In her statement she says she is willing to provide the evidence and meet the PM. If she was only prepared to do so at the time of meeting the PM she would have said she is willing to provide the evidence when she meets the PM. The way she has phrased this sentence in her statement it suggests she is prepared to do either, or, or both.”

      fair enough. Though to be fair, she has said that the texts are not all the evidence. To provide all the evidence necessitates a meeting pretty much. If Key’s problem is wasting time, he’s got a drawn out way of being efficient. 😉

      If the texts don’t back up what she says, then the meeting would be a huge political sucess for Key, making Goff look a right bloody plonker. So I’m still unsure as to what the problem is. I don’t think that doing this sort of thing is wasting the PM’s time. Ensuring Ministerial probity is part of his job.
35. tsmithfield 35

    8 June 2009 at 3:23 pm

    Pascal’s Bookie:
    “Thanks. I’ll take that as a withdrawall of the “she’s a proven liar’ smear, if that’s ok?”

    Thats a fair inference to draw.

    Pascal’s Bookie:
    If the texts don’t back up what she says, then the meeting would be a huge political sucess for Key, making Goff look a right bloody plonker. So I’m still unsure as to what the problem is. I don’t think that doing this sort of thing is wasting the PM’s time. Ensuring Ministerial probity is part of his job.

    But at least on the face of what the complainant has said in her statement, it comes across as if she is willing to provide whatever is asked for without qualification. I see the way Key wants to play it as being similar to paying a deposit. By putting forward the texts and phone records first, she is demonstrating that she actually views her evidence as solid enough to back her story. By now not putting up the evidence, she is undoubtably degrading her credibilitiy with the PM.
    Anyway, these records, in themselves, might be enough to convict Worth without having to put anymore stress on the complainant of having her go and talk with someone she probably views as having horns coming out of his head..

    I don’t think Key has much time left for Worth, so I think he would welcome any evidence that would allow him to pull the trigger for expulsion from the party. Like it or not, I think the complainant, in her statement, has left it open for Key to play things the way he is. I really think she needs to bite the bullet and put the information forward.
    • Maynard J 35.1

      8 June 2009 at 3:29 pm

      “I don’t think Key has much time left for Worth, so I think he would welcome any evidence that would allow him to pull the trigger for expulsion from the party.”

      I think your assertion runs contrary to Key’s actions – he is putting barriers up to getting this evidence and hearing a first-hand account of what occurred.

      If your assertion was correct, Key would not be “play[ing] things the way he is.” He would have met her, got the evidence proffered and informed himself. He has not. He is also damaging his credibility with the complainant, already damaged, you would think, by the strength of the original investigation, or lack of.
    • Pascal's bookie 35.2

      8 June 2009 at 3:33 pm

      I’m still unsure as to what Key has to lose from meeting her. I understand the excuse but not the reason, if you catch my drift. Sure, she can be interpreted as offering a step by step process, but so what?

      Purely on the politics of it, and ignoring Keys possible moral obliations to hear her out (because of his statements made about her credibility), I still don’t see the problem with meeting her. It just seems petty. Again, what has he got to lose?

      Either she is credible or not. Either way the sooner Key finds out the better for him. Playing it out and making demands doesn’t provide much payoff for Key even if she turns out to be a fabricator, but if she is credible his actions will seem awfull.
36. tsmithfield 36

    8 June 2009 at 4:39 pm

    Pascal’s Bookie “I’m still unsure as to what Key has to lose from meeting her.”

    I think perhaps the major issue here is setting a precedent. The precedent shouldn’t be set so that anyone with some sort of half-baked grievance should be able to meet the PM (of what ever party happens to be in power).

    A case in point. Recently, we had the case of the two people who assaulted John Key at Waitangi wanting to have a meeting with him. This too was declined, I think for similar reasons.

    By ensuring a process that enables the womans case to be evaluated first to establish there is a case before speaking to the PM protects the status of the office. Key is quite willing to meet the woman, so long as she can show she has a compelling case. This is probably as it should be IMO.
37. Pascal's bookie 37

    8 June 2009 at 5:29 pm

    “some sort of half-baked grievance”

    Key all but called her a liar, and insinuated that she was making it all up. Key made this public. She did not seek any publicity about this, the publicity has come entirely from Key blabbing about it, which naturally, and rightly, had the press asking Goff about it.

    So the “half-baked grievance” is entirely of the PM’s making. Perhaps we shouldn’t set a precedent for PM’s to get away with that sort of thing.
    • tsmithfield 37.1

      8 June 2009 at 6:48 pm

      Sorry, didn’t mean to suggest that the claimants story is half-baked. Just trying to make the point that the threshold should be high and go through appropriate channels for meeting the PM re grievances.

      I guess we could debate all day about whether the PM should give her direct access immediately or not. However, it seems that is unlikely to happen. So, taking that as given, what do you think the complainant should now do? I think her own credibility is being undermined every time Key effectively says “put up or shut up”. So I think it is in her best interests to go through the perscribed channels.
      • Pascal's bookie 37.1.1

        8 June 2009 at 9:08 pm

        Sorry, didn’t mean to suggest that the claimants story is half-baked.

        I didn’t take it that way, so no need to apologise. I was just pointing out that the general case of ‘random people popping up out of the woodwork with half Baked grievances against a PM’ does not apply in this specific case.

        In this case the complainant has a legitimate grievance, (played out in public), against the PM based on the way he has handled her complaint against one of his ministers.

        Just trying to make the point that the threshold should be high and go through appropriate channels for meeting the PM re grievances.

        Fair enough. I think that due to the PM’s own actions, that threshold has arguably been met.

        I guess we could debate all day about whether the PM should give her direct access immediately or not.

        Well we have been 🙂

        . However, it seems that is unlikely to happen. So, taking that as given,…

        Aah. The good old passive voice. It is unlikely to happen, because Key chooses it not to happen. There is no other reason for it not to happen. So seeing the political question is Key’s handling of the issue and how it reflects on him as a PM, this point is the point of debate, I hardly seem likely to take it as a given. But nice try.

        …what do you think the complainant should now do?

        That, as been mentioned to you before I believe, is entirely up to her. She is a private citizen under no obligations, in difficult circumstances. She owes no one anything, and should do whatever she feels comfortable with. She has made her complaint. Worth promised an affidavit and court cases in response. It will be interesting to see if Key holds him to the former, seeing that promise was what stopped the initial investigation dead in it’s tracks.

        I think her own credibility is being undermined every time Key effectively says “put up or shut up’.

        Nonsense. Her credibility with you started near zero to start off with. Your first reaction was that she was obviously leading Worth on, and you have played around with variations on the theme ever since. At every point it has seemed clear that she wants this to remain as private as possible. That is entirely understandable and her prerogative. For me when ‘Key says put up or shut up’ the thing that comes into question is Key. This is because he is demanding that she ‘put up’ under non ideal conditions.

        Key seems to be edging toward the ‘put up or shut position’, where the ‘putting up’ will have to be done in public. Because that will be her only option if Mr ‘Take Worth at His Promise of an Oath’ decides her evidence is not enough for a meeting.

        Given that she doesn’t want it to become public, and there is no reason for it be so, I hope I am wrong about him forcing her into that position. Because I really don’t think that’s the sort of PM we deserve. And it is absolutely less than what natural justice would say this complainant deserves.

        So I think it is in her best interests to go through the perscribed channels.

        Well the channels are only ‘prescribed’ by Key, for whatever reason, so again, nice use of the passive voice. A slightly threatening passive voice too I might add.

        Why wouldn’t it be in her best interests for Key to try and get at the truth of the matter, rather than playing games? Games that coincidentally shield him from the inadequacy of his initial investigation becoming public. Funny that.
        • tsmithfield 37.1.1.1

          9 June 2009 at 9:04 am

          Pascal: Fair enough. I think that due to the PM’s own actions, that threshold has arguably been met.

          Another reason I would want to see the texts first is that it would give me an opportunity to consider the content so I could ask any relevant questions of the complainant at the time of the interview.

          Pascal: It will be interesting to see if Key holds him to the former, seeing that promise was what stopped the initial investigation dead in it’s tracks.

          I listened to the full interview that Key gave at the press conference last night. He was grilled for 25 minutes over the Worth issue. Actually, I think he handled it quite well. Certainly a different impression than the couple of soundbites on the news.

          He said he had a written statement from Worth on the issue. So, at the moment there is one written statement versus another. Worth has admitted sending some texts but denys any were lewd. So, both sides agrees texts were sent, so it becomes important that evidence of the lewd ones are produced to contradict Worth.

          According to the Herald article today, the woman has the one about swimming. Key has said one text would be enough to get Worth kicked out of caucus. So producing this one should be enough.

          I do wonder if the reason for the delay from the complainants side is not so much to do with the wishes of the complainant but more to do with Labour trying to get political mileage out of this.

          I do wonder if Labour are overplaying this though. My wife, who is very non-political, just rolls her eyes back whenever she hears Goff going on about this issue now. I think there are probably more relevant issues that Labour could be pushing at the moment, rather than what is now turning into a bit of a sideshow.
          • Maynard J 37.1.1.1.1

            9 June 2009 at 9:45 am

            Two points – why should the complainant trust that Key will do anything if she gives his CoS a message – he did nothing with her original complaint, backed down on a meeting and continually questions her honesty. Why would she believe him when he says he will meet her if the texts pass some mysterious test he has now set?

            My train of thought in that situation would be “Key has lied, changed his story and not believed me from day one. If I hand over these texts, he will say ‘not good enough’ and I will have no chance to tell my side of the story in private. There is no way I am handing over these texts without being able to explain my side of the story – and this is what I was promised in the first place”.

            Key is calling Goff a liar – can not blame him for making clear his view of events. Labour is not ‘pushing’ the story at all, it is being dragged along by the media. You pointed out that Key endured 25 minutes of questioning about it – I would not say that Key is ‘pushing’ the story either (dragging it out though – can’t argue that he is not doing that).
38. gobsmacked 38

    8 June 2009 at 6:21 pm

    Check out the tetchy Key and his “Tranzrail eyes” at the Beehive press conference this afternoon (on both One and Three news tonight). He’s still digging away.

    Admitting to the media that he had heard rumours before about Worth … oops.
39. gobsmacked 39

    8 June 2009 at 7:29 pm

    From Scoop website:

    “Today’s post cabinet presser saw more than 25 minutes of inquiry into the Richard Worth saga. Key refused to pin point exactly why he stood Worth down, continuing to say only that the MP’s actions were not those “befitting a minister’.

    Key explained that … ”

    But I couldn’t be bothered to read the rest, because “Explaining is Losing”, in the words of … John Key.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0906/S00080.htm
    • aj 39.1

      8 June 2009 at 8:16 pm

      Does Goff have a tape of his conversation with Key

      🙂
      • gobsmacked 39.1.1

        8 June 2009 at 8:44 pm

        Anyone who has a spare half hour (and you’ll need it!) should listen to the link I posted above, and hear our PM trying to cope with the media.

        It happens to be about Richard Worth, which in the greater scheme of things isn’t that important, but if that’s how he copes with a minor problem, God help us all in a real crisis.

        He’s just hopeless.
      • mike 39.1.2

        8 June 2009 at 8:48 pm

        “Does Goff have a tape of his conversation with Key”

        Yes he does… ah no it was erased by mistake.

        He has an email though… damn lost that too

        recently hand written note anyone??
        • gobsmacked 39.1.2.1

          8 June 2009 at 8:58 pm

          If you had bothered listening to the press conference you would know that Goff’s notes are genuine.

          Better keep your fingers in your ears.
          • mike 39.1.2.1.1

            8 June 2009 at 9:13 pm

            Right so Goff has “genuine notes” does he. So his interpretation has not come into play at then – it’s all word for word?

            You are having a fecking laugh now aren’t you?
40. Zaphod Beeblebrox 40

    8 June 2009 at 9:05 pm

    Who is advising Key on this? The longer the stand-off with the complainant goes on the longer this drags out, the more incompetant Key looks whilst at the same time dragging out the Worth issue.
    This in the same week as an important by-election.

    My advice- meet the woman look at the texts, apologise for the distress, leave it for the National Party to do the rest.

    Then he only has to go through the Mount Albert post mortem and then put out the Super City fire which is threatening to consume his own party in Auckland, by having a good think about what the select committee gives him.
    • gobsmacked 40.1

      8 June 2009 at 9:14 pm

      One of the things that came out of today’s press conference is that Richard Worth admitted (to Key’s chief of staff) that he had sent texts to the woman – though of course he did not admit to inappropriate ones.

      So there is no longer any doubt about that fact.
41. tsmithfield 41

    9 June 2009 at 9:58 am

    Maynard – why should the complainant trust that Key will do anything if she gives his CoS a message – he did nothing with her original complaint, backed down on a meeting and continually questions her honesty.

    I think Key has grounds for scepticism, not so much because of the woman’s story, but more to do with how Labour have dealt with it. I have already pointed out a number of inconsistencies. In the interview last night, Key made the point (not disputed by Goff as far as I know) that Goff told him in the phone call in May that the reason for the call is that the woman wanted the attention to stop. However, according to the womans own statement, the attention had stopped in February, three months earlier. This raises reasonable questions about why Goff would see any need to contact Key at all, especially since Goff is now making a political issue of it.

    Key has already taken action against Worth. I have no doubt he would take any opportunity to expell him from the caucus. This would lance an unpleasant boil for National at the moment.
    • Maynard J 41.1

      9 June 2009 at 11:35 am

      As I said to you above, your assessment of Key is unlikely to be an accurate one, or he would not be putting barriers in the way of meeting someone who might be able to provide the very opportunity you profess he seeks, despite possible scepticism. I wonder why he is shying away from his chance to have that scepticism validated or rejected.

      The complainant has much more solid grounds for scepticism – a pity that our PM can’t be the better person here and make an effort. The time saved in press conferences alone would more than make up for the time a meeting takes, and he would be able to honour a commitment – not a small thing when you consider the scope of his ‘investigation’ of the story originally.
    • The Voice of Reason 41.2

      9 June 2009 at 11:41 am

      Actually, Key has not taken action against Worth. Worth resigned, then Key gave him a fortnight’s holiday to ‘think about his future’, which is code for get the hell out of the spotlight. Key has also said that if Worth needs more time then he will likely extend the leave period. Hardly punitive, eh?

      Hardly action against Worth, more inaction in favour of Worth. His failure to meet with the woman whose plight Goff raised shows just what a lightweight Key is and how desperate he is not to have actually do something about Worth. And, in the meantime, the issue keeps rolling along while our PM Lite works on his thousand yard stare.

Links to post

1. Worth muck won’t stick to Goff « Life and Politics.co.nz: posted on 7 June 2009 at 3:19 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS