Elucidate

28 comments on “Elucidate ”

• Comments are now closed

1. mickysavage 1

   3 July 2009 at 10:34 am

   Stand by for wingnut onslaught as they raise any issue they can think of rather than agree that Key should say why he sacked Worth.
   • Tigger 1.1

     3 July 2009 at 10:49 am

     Clearly it was a beat-up by the left-wing, gay-lesbia,n Maori-ethnic minority group, union-led, poor-worker cabal. They’re always doing stuff like this.
     • gingercrush 1.1.1

       3 July 2009 at 10:58 am

       Oh you’re always quick to form some analysis with pink ties. As if pink is somehow the colour of flamboyant gay behaviour. No doubt we have many more great Tony Ryall references to look forward to in the next few months. If you want to attack wingnuts as you lot appropriately call them (and no doubt many of them deserve to be called that) you should also at the same time have a bloody hard look at your own pathetic behaviour.
       • Maynard J 1.1.1.1

         3 July 2009 at 11:04 am

         Also elucidate… Incoherence manifest. Comprehension irrealizable.
       • Tigger 1.1.1.2

         3 July 2009 at 11:39 am

         gc – your post makes NO sense. Tony Ryall? Where on earth did that come from?
   • gingercrush 1.2

     3 July 2009 at 10:53 am

     As opposed to your stupid blithering on about openness and transparency; using this lovely statement: “There was an interesting interview with Nigel Latta yesterday on Radio New Zealand. He said that the classic response of a teenager who is caught out doing something wrong was to try and change the subject. Reading these posts the ages of some of the posters now becomes evident”. (reminds me of Helen Clark). Then descending into madness by somehow comparing John Key’s actions to North Korea?
     • Pascal's bookie 1.2.1

       3 July 2009 at 10:56 am

       Elucidate?
       • gingercrush 1.2.1.1

         3 July 2009 at 11:22 am

         That was mickysavage to a post made by DPF at Kiwiblog. See it’s always interesting watching mickysavage as he constantly comes out with the wingnut response. Its his standard modus-operandi at Kiwiblog. Hi-jack a Kiwiblog thread and being a wing-nut on Kiwiblog then running back here running wing-nut lines about righties.

         The very thing mickysavage is so anti bout, is the exactly same thing he ends up doing anyway.
         • mickysavage 1.2.1.1.1

           3 July 2009 at 1:47 pm

           GC

           I started off on kiwiblog very restrained, I said

           “So why did John Key lose confidence in Richard Worth?

           If the criminal investigation is not going to continue then there is no justification for not telling us the reason. Unless there is another investigation or incident.

           For the sake of transparency and openness Kiwis need to be told however.”

           It is not a hijack. The debate was then subject to precisely the sort of diversionary issue raising that I predicted and I was trying to make that point. I mentioned North Korea because Whaleoil thinks that we should just accept Key’s word and I was suggesting that that sort of argument only works in somewhere like North Korea.
     • Wendall 1.2.2

       3 July 2009 at 11:10 am

       Who’s comparing Key to North Korea? Wasn’t it David Farrar who put up posters comparing Helen clark to Mugabe and Kim Jung-il?
2. ak 2

   3 July 2009 at 10:57 am

   What I want to know is, should a reason for sacking as part of good ministerial correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand? If not, why not?
3. gingercrush 3

   3 July 2009 at 11:17 am

   Now to answer the damn thing. As a patsy National supporter and a believer in the second coming of Jesus that is John Key. I believe nothing needs to be answered. After all, this whole affair was just the left being nasty and evil and seeking to destroy the great National Party. While the media operated under leftist propaganda to destroy the image of a white male in this country.

   —

   In all seriousness. Why does John Key have to provide an explanation when he has already said he lost confidence in Richard Worth. His actions were unbecoming of a minister and that it wasn’t in the public interest to know. But of course that isn’t enough for you lot.
   • Wendall 3.1

     3 July 2009 at 11:39 am

     Do you seriously believe that it’s against the public interest to make the reason public? Public interest is a reason not to disclose matters that relate to security or economic stability, not a reason to keep something secret for political reasons.

     Remember, this is a democracy. the default position is to make information public, information should only be kept secret for a good public interest reason, not just because the PM doesn’t feel like telling.
     • Daveski 3.1.1

       3 July 2009 at 12:38 pm

       Looks like we both have to lift our game, eh Wendall? I’m jumping to conclusions here (I feel in the moat in another thread) but you surely would have held the same view for the past 9 years and not somehow come to this view since November. Surely not?

       In any case, losing the PM’s confidence is the answer you’re looking for/
4. Nick 4

   3 July 2009 at 11:19 am

   Was Key heard to mutter “I sacked the prick”?.
5. Maggie 5

   3 July 2009 at 11:27 am

   It was my old mate Frank Haden, I think, who described politicians as “our employees”.

   Well, our branch manager has fired someone. As that manager’s employer I want a report on my desk by the end of business today explaining why.
   • Daveski 5.1

     3 July 2009 at 12:40 pm

     If you were involved with the dark arts of firing someone, you would know that almost invariably the truth is never as it’s portrayed. I would even go as saying that there is more transparency in this case than the average sacking.
6. Pat 6

   3 July 2009 at 11:32 am

   Was Key’s judgement right? I think so:

   a) If he revealed the contents of the email (whether in parliament or not), he may have prejudiced the police investigation.

   b) Was it “in the public interest” to know the contents of the email? I don’t think it is the role of the prime-minister to reveal tabloid fodder, when he had already dealt with Worth by sacking him.

   The opposing argument would be that Key, under Parliamentary questioning, should answer any and all questions presented to him. Therefore he would have been compelled to reveal the most grubby parts of the email (presumably too grubby for TV3 to reveal last night)..
   • Wendall 6.1

     3 July 2009 at 11:42 am

     “I don’t think it is the role of the prime-minister to reveal tabloid fodder’

     strawman and it’s not for the PM to decide not to release information because he doesn’t think it’s high-class enough.
     • Pat 6.1.1

       3 July 2009 at 11:51 am

       That’s the crux of the debate. In Key’s judgement that information is not in the public’s interest. The flip side means he should answer all questions, so potentially:

       – Was Mr Worth naked?
       – Was he in a state of arousal?
       – Did he have sexual relations with the complainant?
       – What were the nature of those relations?
       – Was it consensual?
       etc etc

       In my view, Key was right to draw the line and not go near any such questions.
       • Maynard J 6.1.1.1

         3 July 2009 at 11:58 am

         You can be more specific than saying “lost his confidence” without telling us whether Worth had a boner.

         What do you have to do – lie, cheat and steal, or just get in a compromising situation? For all we know Worth told Key to mind his own goddamn business! We have a right to know the general standards that Key demands of his ministers.

         What about all those people who Party Voted National because of Richard Worth? They are virtually disenfranchised!
       • snoozer 6.1.1.2

         3 July 2009 at 3:08 pm

         Key has said it wasn’t sexual activity that got Worth fired. So you can put it away now Pat. It’s distracting but when it comes down to it, it doesn’t work.
7. Maggie 7

   3 July 2009 at 11:57 am

   Pat, Key doesn’t need to answer any of those questions, though it could be a bit of fun.

   At Question Time, Key has even refused to answer whether, when he sacked Worth, he was in possession of any information which was not in the public arena. The question didn’t ask WHAT unpublished info he had, simply whether he had any.

   Key ducked the question by claiming it was not in the public interest for him to answer it, which is just astounding.

   By refusing to be more open Key has made a rod for his own back.
   • Pat 7.1

     3 July 2009 at 12:03 pm

     It’s a circular argument. Somewhere Key has to decide where to draw the line.

     “Were you in possession of any information not in the public arena?” A: Yes

     Happy now? Of course not, because it naturally leads onto the next questions i.e.
     What was the nature of this information?
     Who was it from?
     What did it say? etc
8. Pat 8

   3 July 2009 at 12:26 pm

   One thing I’ve been trying to figure out – from the TV3 news story:

   …the woman woke up to find a naked Mr Worth standing beside her bed…

   How the hell did he get into her hotel room?
9. ak 9

   3 July 2009 at 12:46 pm

   ..Worth had a boner…rod for his back…standing beside her….did he get into her… yuk, yuk, yukkety yuk.
   Have to agree with Pat, this is not in the public interest, never mind the child abuse implications the image of a naked wrinkled tory (sans or avec boner) trying to slip into one’s bed on a dark night might have on the psyche of vulnerable kiddies – I’m sure Tim will be along soon to tell us that this is all an innocent misunderstanding, a simple nana-enhancing, korea-boosting exercise perhaps?
10. gobsmacked 10

    3 July 2009 at 1:56 pm

    Pat, Key just had to say “public interest, police inquiry”. No more questions, pending the inquiry But he specifically (read your Hansard) said it was more than that. But won’t say what.

    Consensual infidelity isn’t an offence.

    But sexual harrassment, or jobs for favours, or using his Ministerial priviliges for personal gain – those are reasons to sack a Minister.

    We don’t know, we’re entitled to know. Saying it’s all a bit icky for our tender ears – not good enough.

    (In passing: anyone want to play conspiracy theory? News comes out just as the House goes into recess for 2 weeks … convenient, eh?)
11. Rex Widerstrom 11

    3 July 2009 at 3:33 pm

    So another politician does something that’s possibly illegal (but now we’ll never know), almost certainly immoral, and essentially the only price they pay is their job.

    Winston wanders off into the sunset with his pension, questions about the matter of $158,000 of public money and murky links to portfolio-related donors now seemingly unimportant.

    Worth is accused not just of a bit of sad hanky panky but of possibly having traded government appointments for favours, not to mention misusing his diplomatic credentials to the advantage of his business interests and he too, it seems, just walks away from his job and the slate is wiped clean.

    Yet if another level of public servant pinched so much as the petty cash tin or tipped their relative off to government tender a few weeks early they’d be frog marched into the arms of the Police, accompanied by politicians posturing about “transparency” and “accountability” in the public service.

    That’s why I always sigh when people bang on about NZ’s ranking on some international corruption scale. Sure, you can’t bribe, say, an immigration officer with a wad of cash slipped into your passport, or a Police officer with a few bucks when you’re stopped for speeding.

    Pity we can’t say the same for our elected representatives. They, it seems, are more equal than others…

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS