Fishy

Written By: - Date published: 9:11 pm, July 29th, 2009 - 38 comments
Categories: uncategorized - Tags:

Here’s one of the solo mothers targeted by Bennett appearing on Checkpoint last evening.

She’s angry and eloquent and clearly aware of the game that has been played. Talking about the attacks that have been made on her by talkback callers she says:

It’s been really heartbreaking but they feel they have the right to comment. Why? Because Ms Bennett raised my details with the press and she knew that that was going to happen.

On the issue of being bullied after speaking out she says:

I think the whole point of this was to intimidate us out of our democratic right to protest the government’s decision.

Less than twenty four hours later and she’s telling TV3 that she has apologised to Bennett after a phone call with her (what she’s apologising for we don’t know, forcing the minister to break the law to smear her perhaps?).

I’m sorry but this doesn’t add up. I’d like to know what was said on that phone call today because this kind of turn-around just doesn’t happen without some kind of fear or favour involved. It just smells a bit… fishy.

38 comments on “Fishy ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. burt 1
    29 July 2009 at 9:24 pm

    I think the whole point of this was to intimidate us out of our democratic right to protest the government’s decision.

    I do understand this position.

    Being surrounded by pro EFB supporters with megaphones shouting down a protest was pretty rank. I wasn’t scared for my safety in that situation but I was pretty pissed that other people decided my right to protest was something they had the right to extinguish. Funny though, the pro EFB supporters were defended on this blog. Go figure.

  2. BLiP 2
    29 July 2009 at 9:26 pm

    Probably uncovered some sort of dirt the poor woman doesn’t want splashed across the front page of the New Zealand Fox New Herald or hung out to dry in talk-back land. I can just see Bully Bennett sitting there in the woman’s lounge slowly spelling out the consequences of not backing down and then smiling her narcissistic grin before demanding an apology as well.

  3. gingercrush 3
    29 July 2009 at 9:33 pm

    So you’re implying that this beneficiary accepted some type of favour that apparently National or should that be Paula Bennett has given her?

    Now who is being dishonest and implicating and smearing someone.

    • IrishBill 3.1
      29 July 2009 at 9:44 pm

      I’m not implying it GC, I’m stating that in my opinion there is a high likelihood that a sudden turn-around like this is the result of a threat or a bribe or both.

      It’s possible also that she just wanted to get out of the media spotlight and put the whole ugly incident behind her but given how strong her interview on checkpoint was I find that unlikely (and I recommend people listen to both peces back to back to really get a sense of the change). The fact she apologised to the minister rather than simply saying she was putting it behind her and would no longer comment also points away from this scenario.

      We’ll find out what happened in the end because Invercargill is a very small town with an very active gossip mill.

      • gingercrush 3.1.1
        29 July 2009 at 10:02 pm

        Invercargill isn’t that small.Not sure when you were last there but the idea of some quaint small town is perplexing. But Southlanders tend to be honest people, they don’t get fussed over things that you would find elsewhere. Thus what I think you’ll find is someone that whilst may not be happy with the situation they’ve been handed,don’t react as you or others would expect her too. I’m not sure you understand Southlanders. We tend to be calm and level-headed.

        By incidence IB you are in saying she is likely to have accepted a bribe or been threatened to change your mind. You are smearing her. Thus you have gone from someone defending this women to openly questioning her actions. I’m well aware you infering that its National doing. But by just doing that in my opinion you’re implicating this woman as someone that takes bribes.Essentially you’re defaming her. How quickly the tide turns. Now that someone chooses not to see the world as you see it, they’re suddenly lying about how they feel?

        That makes you no better than those of us who have been posting at Kiwiblog or the right-blogs bashing the beneficiaries. I actually think you should rescind your comments now because with this post you’re smearing this woman.

        • IrishBill 3.1.1.1
          29 July 2009 at 10:08 pm

          No I’m question the actions of the Nats because I’ve seen the lengths they’ll go to to shut down debate. And I know Invercargill very well so don’t try to feed me patronising shit about Southlanders.

          • gingercrush 3.1.1.1.1
            29 July 2009 at 10:13 pm

            And by implicating this women as possibly accepting a bribe you are smearing her character. In other words you are now questioning her actions, her motives and her words. And sorry but if you really believe Invercargill is a small town with an active gossip mill you clearly don’t know Invercargill at all.

            • IrishBill 3.1.1.1.1.1
              29 July 2009 at 10:21 pm

              Whatever.

            • Philonz 3.1.1.1.1.2
              30 July 2009 at 2:23 pm

              I’m not sure how Southland is at all relevant in either of your arguments. I grew up there, it is absolutely a small town with an active gossip mill but that doesn’t mean anything really.

    • Craig Glen Eden 3.2
      29 July 2009 at 10:01 pm

      This response is the behavior of someone who has been bullied. If you look at Bennett approaching the cameras on the news she thinks she has got her self out of the mess, watch the swagger. The about turn by this women is not surprising, Bennett is a bully in my opinion I have watched her in action in public meetings she yells over the top of people and treats them with derision.
      However she is like all bullies she is weak and a coward. When someone has ago at her she quickly folds and goes into victim role. This will not be the last time we see this type of behavior from Bennett it is who she is,as sure as eggs are eggs Bennett will bully because thats what she does. Who is Bennett’s mentor, Rankin the the former social welfare CEO who staff reported used bullying tactics against them.

  4. toad 4
    29 July 2009 at 9:46 pm

    They are actually being very clever. Good cop (Johnston) and bad cop (Fuller).

    Together they will out the unlawful activity that has seen them defamed on the likes of kiwiblog.

    • Relic 4.1
      29 July 2009 at 10:01 pm

      Lets hope so Toad. BLiP is spot on about dirty tricks though. A friend of mine who some years ago had a really good case against WINZ re denial of a special benefit related to her actual living costs won her case, then WINZ appealed. She was threatened by a WINZ lawyer with unpleasant media scrutiny and being exposed as living in a big house in Mt Eden high on the hog on a DPB! if she took it any further. My friend backed down. Eventually the legislative versus policy issue on special benefit was settled, years too late to be of any practial use for thousands of beneficiaries.

      The point is BLiP is dead right about how MSD might operate, it is in their DNA. A world away from the old Social Security Act that was actually there to assist our fellow citizens.

  5. Scott Yorke 5
    29 July 2009 at 9:51 pm

    Maybe she just decided it wasn’t a big deal and became tired of others feigning outrage on her behalf for political purposes. Who wants to be a political pawn?

    • IrishBill 5.1
      29 July 2009 at 9:54 pm

      Yeah, I thought that too but then why apologise? And she seemed pretty outraged herself yesterday on checkpoint.

      • Adders 5.1.1
        30 July 2009 at 1:41 pm

        It’s typical behaviour synonymous with bullying:

        “Bullying results in fear, shame, embarrassment and guilt which increase whilst the bullying continues. Bullies recognise these symptoms and use them to disempower their victim.

        Shame is a powerful and painful emotion caused by a strong sense of guilt, embarrassment or disgrace. It is a normal feeling originating from our sense of right and wrong; if you do something wrong, you feel guilty and ashamed and develop the belief that others will think harshly of you for your transgressions. Related feelings include a sense of disappointment, dishonour, disgrace, or condemnation. There is often an accompanying belief, often largely unfounded, that one is somehow deserving of disapproval, censure, condemnation and punishment.

        Whilst the ability to feel shame is healthy, for many people shame is also a strong feeling originating from a belief in having done wrong, whether or not that belief is correct. People are also more likely to feel undue shame in proportion to how low their self-esteem and self-confidence are. As bullying destroys self-confidence and self-esteem, it is natural and normal for anyone being bullied to start to feel undue amounts of shame. The bully heaps on the guilt, thus increasing the belief in their victim they (the target of this abuse) are deserving of all the bad things that are now happening to them.

        A universal symptom of Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is a deep-seated sense of unworthiness, undeservingness and non-entitlement. . . . this is a manifestation of shame and might be articulated as an apology . . . .’

        Plenty more on the subject at bullyonline.

    • QoT 5.2
      29 July 2009 at 9:55 pm

      Care to be more specific about who’s “feigning” outrage, Scott? Because that’s a pretty general statement to make and I frankly am offended at the implication.

      • Scott Yorke 5.2.1
        30 July 2009 at 8:45 am

        QoT, please don’t be offended. I was not directing my comment at you. Rather, I was referring to some Labour MPs who’ve been on the airwaves and in the newspapers talking up the issue in an aggrieved and outraged manner.

        I know and understand why they do this – it’s politics. And I’m okay with it. Hence the reference to “feigned”. If a Labour minister had been the culprit the Nats would be doing the same thing. It’s all a game to them.

        Which is why I can understand why the woman decided not to be a part of it anymore.

  6. North 6
    29 July 2009 at 10:10 pm

    So Bennett broke the law and did it to “round out the picture”.

    Well what would the dickheads who say tax cuts are a human right and go very public about it, and those of them who have trusts, and those of them who have tax schemes, what would they say were I to publish their financial details, how much tax they avoid etc etc etc ?

    And thus have the talkback buzzing derision and hatred against those same dickheads, lustily encouraged by the intellectually lazy, egotistical arseholes who have the talking gigs. A consequernce fully intended by me, as of course Bennett so intended in respect of these two women.

    And then to smile a glib, bullshit smile and call it…….”rounding out the picture……” And have the idiot press groupies paint her strong in her refusal to acknowledge the hideousness of her behaviour.

    Disgraceful ! And John Key is “comfortable” ?

  7. Michael 7
    29 July 2009 at 10:22 pm

    Per trademe opinions, where the woman in question has been quite open as to what happened. It is not fishy but the preference to not to be a political football

  8. mike 8
    29 July 2009 at 10:39 pm

    Fishy – thats how I’d describe the fact that Labours then Minister Benson-pope released personal info about Fuller back in 2007. Also the fact she has links to the labour party.

    Another one goes off in labours face or whats left of it…

  9. RedLogix 9
    29 July 2009 at 10:42 pm

    These things go in cycles. It’s an uncertain time for many, lots of people knowing how close to the edge they are. Times like these are made for fascists.

    It’ll start with the ugly old kiwi pastime of bene-bashing. Most times it gets hosed down by saner voices, but this time I have the uncomfortable feeling that it is being fed.

  10. Bill 10
    29 July 2009 at 10:43 pm

    You are a beneficiary and WINZ or the minister make it clear that their interrogative spotlight is going to be firmly on you?

    Of course you back down!

    Even if all your ben claims are squeaky clean the bastards can and will make your life a nightmare of hoop jumping, meetings, ‘reviews’, interviews etc

    It’s why many beneficiaries often put up and shut up when wronged because the consequences of doing otherwise can be extremely onerous.

    • burt 10.1
      30 July 2009 at 12:24 am

      Bill

      If you are face to face with a minister that appears to have trampled through privacy legislation you back down… That’s not sounding like the sort of person who takes on the govt via a blog complaining about welfare issues now is it.

      Now either this culture of put up and shut up is new and that is a disgrace or it is not new and that is a disgrace. I really hope this woman having gone this far as to have a minister on the ropes hasn’t suddenly discovered a skeleton in her closet and needs to back down.

      Fishy indeed.

      • roger nome 10.1.1
        30 July 2009 at 9:19 am

        Burt:

        This woman has sick children at home to look after, a nursing degree to undertake, and now legends of Kiwiblog-right style rednecks attacking her in public.

        Perhaps she didn’t foresee that Bennett would be venal and stupid enough to violate her privacy? Perhaps it’s all just gotten on top of her, and she’s quitting before she has a nervous breakdown?

        Perhaps you’ve got you head so far up your self-righteous unsavoury orifice that you’ve missed the most likely explanation?

        • burt 10.1.1.1
          30 July 2009 at 11:32 am

          Ill backing her to take Bennett on if Bennett has broken the law, hell I’ll even contribute to her legal costs if that is required – just like I did for Darnton vs Clark.

          How about you roger – other than personal attacks at people who’s position you have clearly misunderstood – what will you contribute if called on?

  11. outofbed 11
    29 July 2009 at 11:22 pm

    Hmm something is not right I agree
    Such a turnaround in 24 hours
    so what happened?

    1). The women reflected on what she said yesterday

    “I think the whole point of this was to intimidate us out of our democratic right to protest the government’s decision.”

    and thought no ,after being shit all over by public opinion she apologies to Paula for dragging it through the media
    seems incredibly unlikely

    2) Its been too stressful ,you back down to make it all go away and say anything to expedite that ie apologising
    most likely

    3) Bennett phones up a threatening to release something else about the women that is further damaging to her
    bennett certainly is capable of doing this, but a very high risk strategy

    4) The women is a Labour party stooge and fears if this carries on it will reflect badly on Labour as they are someway involved
    can’t imagine Bennett/National would let that go

    5) I will send my son in laws Gang around to menace you if you don’t front up and apologise
    nah just me making a cheap point

    6) “Here is 10,000 grand love i will deliver it when i come around for coffee”
    shit I nailed it

  12. Rex Widerstrom 12
    30 July 2009 at 12:31 am

    Pity the nation whose people are sheep,
    and whose shepherds mislead them.
    Pity the nation whose leaders are liars, whose sages are silenced,
    and whose bigots haunt the airwaves.
    Pity the nation that raises not its voice,
    except to praise conquerors and acclaim the bully as hero
    and aims to rule the world with force and by torture.
    Pity the nation that knows no other language but its own
    and no other culture but its own.
    Pity the nation whose breath is money
    and sleeps the sleep of the too well fed.
    Pity the nation—oh, pity the people who allow their rights to erode
    and their freedoms to be washed away.
    My country, tears of thee, sweet land of liberty.

    – Lawrence Ferlinghetti on the US, but applicable here methinks.

  13. Pascal's bookie 13
    30 July 2009 at 8:48 am

    Nice one Rex.

    I’ve been thinkin about Burns the last coupla days:

    What though on hamely fare we dine,
    Wear hoddin grey, an’ a’ that?
    Gie fools their silks, and knaves their wine,
    “A man’s a man for a’ that.
    For a’ that, an’ a’ that,
    Their tinsel show, an’ a’ that,
    The honest man, tho’ e’er sae poor,
    Is king o’ men for a’ that.

    Ye see yon birkie ca’d a lord,
    Wha struts, an’ stares, an’ a’ that;
    Tho’ hundreds worship at his word,
    He’s but a coof for a’ that.
    For a’ that, an’ a’ that,
    His ribband, star, an’ a’ that,
    The man o’ independent mind
    He looks an’ laughs at a’ that.