It’s not OK

54 comments on “It’s not OK ”

• Comments are now closed

1. mickysavage 1

   13 August 2009 at 8:48 pm

   It is sad but if it was a senior Labour official there would be a deep sense of regret and respect for the (potential) victim.

   Over in rightwingland there is contempt and the burning urge to publish and sentence before the truth has actually been established.

   Speaks volumes about the difference between left and right.
2. Johnty Rhodes 2

   13 August 2009 at 8:50 pm

   Actually, Labour tried hiding a lot of things, Bill Lui citizenship for instance but let Dover hang when he was innocent. National are being more decisive than Labour are on morals.
3. Eddie 3

   13 August 2009 at 8:53 pm

   Yeah, well that’s true. Had Worth been a Labour minister, you simply wouldn’t have had the witch-hunt against the women that the right launched.

   But this isn’t about scoring political points.
   • Adolf Fiinkensein 3.1

     13 August 2009 at 9:32 pm

     No, of course not. You would have tucked him away safely along with Benson-Pope and Field and you would NEVER have gone public with the fact that she was a National Party activist. No, of course not.
     • Ari 3.1.1

       14 August 2009 at 6:13 am

       Which is not the same as actively demonising her.

       But I bet that would have happened too, just not quite as badly. The left aren’t saints, just some of us manage a little self-control now and then. Outside of the whole partisan point-scoring mess, anyway.
4. lukas 4

   13 August 2009 at 9:05 pm

   I am not following the logic of your comments at the bottom… Whaleoil seems to be saying that the person involved must go, how is that got anything to do with the “prejudice that women are always lying”?

   I agree that whoever it is must go though.
5. Jared 5

   13 August 2009 at 9:23 pm

   Come on, he hasn’t said she is wrong. You might not like Whale Oil, but I won’t accept the standard putting words in his mouth when he hasn’t even insinuated she is lying.
6. Andrei 6

   13 August 2009 at 9:35 pm

   Whaleoil says it’s a **** ***** official and that he must resign his position*

   I think you might be in breach of a court order here

   Not that it worries me in the slightest – I know who it is and its all going to come out sooner or later but you gotta play by the rules – or not as you choose
7. Eddie 7

   13 August 2009 at 9:41 pm

   No. He hasn’t said she is lying but he says that in these circumstances people have to go just because of the political damage the accusation itself does. He draws an analogy to what he claimed was a ‘honeytrap’ by Labour, says the accusation is why he had to go.

   Now, that has be based in a worldview that men get fake accusations made against them all the time but society is so ‘pc’ that he doesn’t have a chance of ever truly clearing his name.

   It’s a tricky one, but I see misogyny underlying the comment, but if you think I’m overstating it, fair enough.
8. lukas 8

   13 August 2009 at 9:47 pm

   Mate, you are more than overstating it. The post at W O is even titled “off with his head”. You’ve let your hate of him cloud your judgment here mate.

   “As Richard Worth proved there is no innocent until proven guilty in politics. It doesnt matter who it is ( I know who it is and the comments will be patrolled to avoid breaching supression orders), it wouldnt matter if it was a lezzo bashing her missus, it is wrong, and it is untenable for anyone in public life to hold their position in the face of such accusations.”

   Is the mention of Worth… nothing about a Honey Trap in there, just simple plain language that the person involved must go.
   • BLiP 8.1

     13 August 2009 at 10:08 pm

     Once again, you are wrong. You’re exactly the sort of person that lies awake at night wondering where the sun went. Don’t you ever get sick of yourself?
   • Eddie 8.2

     13 August 2009 at 10:18 pm

     see, i don’t think it’s ‘untenable to hold their position in the face of accusations’.. that suggests it’s the accusation, not the guilt that counts – ie that Whale’s consideration is mostly about minimising the political fallout for National, not about the moral need for the person to go. not that i’m saying he condones such behaviour, he clearly doesn’t.
9. Whaleoil 9

   13 August 2009 at 11:13 pm

   Lovely you make a vast leap in your own mind about what I meant. I meant exactly what I said not anything less or more.

   The fact you see “underlying misogyny” says more about you than it does about me.

   I have pointed out in subsequent posts that you can’t spin domestic violence. Frankly I don’t care if there are only accusations and they are never proven, where there is smoke there is fire and so the person must go.

   You are just perplexed that I could call for the head of someone from my own party when you guys in general protect your own even when reprehensible dealings are revealed to all. Phillip Field is a case in point. Not once has anyone here denounced such a reprehensible character. [this is what I wrote when Field was convicted “That man betrayed everyone who ever supported and trusted him. He exemplifies how power can corrupt”. but I’ll take out the comment on what I see underlying your comments as you deny it. Ed]

   Stop putting words in my mouth and own your own problems.
   • Ari 9.1

     14 August 2009 at 6:15 am

     So you supported firing Dr. Worth as soon as you learned there were allegations against him? Or is that one of those “I’m not being inconsistent because…” issues? 😉
     • Tim Ellis 9.1.1

       14 August 2009 at 7:49 am

       I rarely read Mr Slater’s blog Ari, but I do recall he was one of the first people to call on Dr Worth to resign.
       • Pascal's bookie 9.1.1.1

         14 August 2009 at 8:24 am

         Over that Indian trip then?
       • BLiP 9.1.1.2

         14 August 2009 at 8:26 am

         Or maybe it was about that camel he was so fond of?
10. SJ Hawkins 10

    13 August 2009 at 11:20 pm

    I just don’t get where you’re coming from Eddie. First you’ve published information that you probably shouldn’t have (and perhaps I missed it on Whaleoil but I found nothing there saying it is a National MP), then you use the incident to attack whaleoil.
    Are you really Cameron Slater’s twin sister?
    • Eddie 10.1

      14 August 2009 at 12:03 am

      You see nothing in this post either saying it was a National MP.

      It says he’s a National official.

      Whale has removed the passage, apparently under threat. I’m simply reporting that Whale said it.
11. Ianmac 11

    13 August 2009 at 11:21 pm

    Could it be that a recent MP is the one in trouble?
12. Rex Widerstrom 12

    14 August 2009 at 3:44 am

    And here I was thinking NZ had one law for all…

    Suppression order? I was told to “don’t even bother asking”. And it’s not as though I was totally unknown (as the front page of the Dom, articles in most other dailies, radio coverage and several minutes on the TV news illustrated) or even had a bland name that could be confused with other people.

    I now have to live with the result of people — potential clients and who knows who else — Googling me and reading no further than an outdated and superseded report before dismissing having any association with me; with having vile accusations flung around (all on rightwing blogs, I have to say); and even the cowardly Ron Mark getting away with defaming me under cover of privilege.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m pleased this “senior political figure” has name suppression and condemn Whaleoil’s “where there’s smoke there’s fire” attitude. Sometimes there is. Sometimes there’s just smoke. And sometimes there’s a pack of lies.

    But I just wonder why the same courtesy isn’t extended to everyone whose lives could be forever damaged by adverse publcity surrounding unproven charges? And not just me… the only just course is for any person accused to have name suppression until such time as their last avenue of appeal is exhausted – or at least till the first finding of guilt.

    And that the courts be given the power not just to suppress but to order that, if a person found guilty is later exonerated, the media who reported their downfall must give equal prominence to their rehabilitation.

    The only exceptions should be when Police have no other way to alert other potential victims, believe their to be such victims, and can convince a judge of that necessity, or rare instances like remand prison escapees.
    • ghostwhowalks 12.1

      14 August 2009 at 11:45 am

      Its not defamation if its true.
      that fact that someone was arrested and extradited to face a crime is true.
      If the charges were dropped then there is no obligation to mention that, merely unfair.

      Lifes unfair Tough
      • Rex Widerstrom 12.1.1

        14 August 2009 at 4:34 pm

        What an astoundingly well reasoned position from a tribune of the Left.

        Let’s see if it’s applicable to anything else shall we?

        Paula Bennett’s revealed your personal details? Lifes unfair Tough.

        You’ve been fired unjustifiably? Lifes unfair Tough.

        You’re ill and can’t get adequate treatment? Lifes unfair Tough.

        Been beaten or raped? Lifes unfair Tough.

        Ooooo this is fun.

        Why bother deciding between all this complexity offered by the likes of Key and Goff, let alone the yelling from the sidelines of Greens and Maoris.

        No need for considered law changes – Lifes unfair Tough. In fact no need for a Parliament, or for many government agencies.

        We’ll just set GWW up at a little lemonade stand, like Lucy in Peanuts, and s/he can dispense such sage advice to everyone with a problem.

        (And incidentally, genius, where did I say, or even imply, defamation?)
        • ghostwhowalks 12.1.1.1

          14 August 2009 at 7:20 pm

          You never did explain how your solicitor spoke to the alleged victim . Thats most unusual, normally they only get their chance in court. Which never happened of course, as the charges were dropped.
          As for the other spilt milk you mention, the neighbours can tell the world I drink all night but my doctor cant.
          But its obvious you dont know the difference. Then again a lot of things about ‘the troubles’ of Rex Widerstrom dont make sense either
          • Rex Widerstrom 12.1.1.1.1

            14 August 2009 at 8:29 pm

            If your neighbours tell the world you drink all night it’s unlikely to be picked up by the MSM and thus given credence by casual Internet readers. And they’d possibly be defaming you unless they could prove you did drink all night.

            The police and courts can’t defame someone, so when you’re arrested and charged with being drunk in public and your name plastered all over the MSM (assuming you have some pre-existing profile, otherwise they’re not interested) you’ll likely be ridiculed as a p*sshead your entire life even if later acquitted.

            I do see the difference, and think it not fair.

            As for your other insinuation, you might refer to the thread on Kiwiblog where the same tactic was tried (and DPF, much to his credit, went through with a shovel and cleaned up after people like you).

            After going to the Police and having them refuse to record her admission that she’d lied, the complainant obtained her own solicitor, who swore her statement and then forced the Director of Public Prosecutions to accept it by saying she would produce a copy in court and testify that she saw it handed to prosecutors.

            In view of the abuse of powers she saw occurring and the age of the complainant the solicitor did the work pro bono.

            My barrister never said a word to the complainant… but I’m sure he’d be interested to hear you’re accusing him of malfeasance.
            • ghostwhowalks 12.1.1.1.1.1

              15 August 2009 at 12:48 pm

              Its all a bit tiresome, we have heard it much more glaringly from Veitch and Weatherston, blame the victim.

              You have been a ‘reporter’ ( writing about the Hutt County Council doesnt qualify you as a journalist) but most trials arent about good versus evil. The evidence process sometimes shows lies from both sides( The police lied in the first Bain trial, which they l later admitted) but its the totality of the case that you have to decide on, much like real life actually.
13. mike 13

    14 August 2009 at 7:23 am

    Its ‘not OK’ to presure former MPs to toe the line either http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10590716
    Looks like the control freak is losing her grip…
    • Eddie 13.1

      14 August 2009 at 8:51 am

      isn’t it weird that the Herald is still obsessed with attacking her?
      • lukas 13.1.1

        14 August 2009 at 9:38 am

        isn’t it weird that Helen is still obsessed with trying to control everyone?
        • bill brown 13.1.1.1

          14 August 2009 at 10:11 am

          Isn’t it weird that you’re threatened by females with power?
14. Gaint Mason Philly 14

    14 August 2009 at 8:35 am

    “Domestic violence cannot be tolerated in our society,”

    Yeah right,more bullshit,a judge and many cops have protection orders on them.
    Fact.Nice one Peter.Test me in court!~!
    • Pascal's bookie 14.1

      14 August 2009 at 8:41 am

      hi dad,
      Wouldn’t those orders be an example of not tolerating domestic violence? Or is the point that anyone with such an order against them should be also sacked from their jobs?
15. BLiP 15

    14 August 2009 at 8:37 am

    Hi Dad.
    • Gaint Mason Philly 15.1

      14 August 2009 at 8:42 am

      Do police attending DV situations advise the female PO applicant that many in the force own protection orders?Ouch that hurt Mr Keystone Plod.Maybe Wussell Brown could answer that for me?Corrupt bastards make me vomit.White Ribbon.Yeah right mr judge!
16. vto 16

    14 August 2009 at 10:11 am

    If this person must go then why didn’t Trevor Mallard go for his violence?
    • bill brown 16.1

      14 August 2009 at 10:13 am

      Please provide link where it’s proven that he “behaving violently or threateningly towards [a] woman”
      • bobbity 16.1.1

        14 August 2009 at 10:18 am

        Here’s violently

        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10471953

        Here’s threateningly towards a woman

        http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425825/1468729
        • bill brown 16.1.1.1

          14 August 2009 at 11:34 am

          “Here’s threateningly towards a woman”

          When was this taken to court?
          • bobbity 16.1.1.1.1

            14 August 2009 at 3:39 pm

            You asked for a link for Trevor behaving threateningly towards a woman ……. but I suppose you think he was doing nothing wrong in this instance.

            Strange how you can damn Bennett but back your side under similar circumstances ….. I prefer to think they’re all cast from a very similar stone, probably a copralite of some description.
    • BLiP 16.2

      14 August 2009 at 10:28 am

      Different set of standards with National Inc. Gerry Brownlee was actually convicted of assault and then, less than a year later, promoted. Blubber-boy reckoned this myserious chap with the name suppression was a National Party official which means whoever he is will probably end up Chairman.
      • ghostwhowalks 16.2.1

        14 August 2009 at 11:50 am

        Not quite, the police didnt deem it worthy of their time – screams of moral outrage over political interference didnt seem to surface at the time
        So the the victim laid a private prosecution, which they won.

        Incidentally Whaleoil was an ‘unindicted offender’ with Brownlee over this incident. So it seems that political violence is OK, I dont think he would resile from that
17. vto 17

    14 August 2009 at 10:40 am

    Oh ok, so it is ok to “behave violently or threateningly towards a man”.

    Glad you’ve helped clear up the left’s acceptance of violence. And tied it up with sexism.
    • bill brown 17.1

      14 August 2009 at 11:11 am

      So you couldn’t find that link then. That’s known as “making shit up”
      • vto 17.1.1

        14 August 2009 at 11:24 am

        what shit am i making up you buffoon?
        • bill brown 17.1.1.1

          14 August 2009 at 11:42 am

          When you said that I think it’s “ok to “behave violently or threateningly towards a man’.” you dickhead
          • vto 17.1.1.1.1

            14 August 2009 at 11:45 am

            you lost me.

            If this person must go then why didn’t Trevor Mallard go for his violence?

            or is there some distinction between domestic violence and ‘non-domestic’ violence?
            • Bright Red 17.1.1.1.1.1

              14 August 2009 at 11:57 am

              Trevor lost his portfolios didn’t he? And I forget, was he convicted and discharged without sentence or was no conviction entered?

              Called me old-fashioned but if two evenly matched male idiots get all heated up and end up have a wee slap-fight, I’m not so worried about it as I am about domestic violence.

              If it’s the mere fact that he got into a minor (and by all accounts pretty pathetic) brawl with Tau that has you so worried, vto, shouldn’t you want them both to go?
            • bill brown 17.1.1.1.1.2

              14 August 2009 at 11:57 am

              Well you lost me when you said “Glad you’ve helped clear up the left’s acceptance of violence. And tied it up with sexism.” which is just some shit you made up.
          • bobbity 17.1.1.1.2

            14 August 2009 at 11:50 am

            Bill are you Trevor ….. I can’t imagine any other reason to spring so valiantly to his defence ?
            • Bright Red 17.1.1.1.2.1

              14 August 2009 at 11:58 am

              Trevor uses his own name
            • bill brown 17.1.1.1.2.2

              14 August 2009 at 11:59 am

              bobbity are you thick … I can’t imagine any other reason to spring so valiantly to vto’s defence ?
            • bobbity 17.1.1.1.2.3

              14 August 2009 at 4:43 pm

              Bill, no I’m not thick, looks to me that you have a large mancrush on Trevor ……. how sweet.
18. Geo 18

    14 August 2009 at 3:22 pm

    Whale oil has all but released this persons name and position.
    Random-words and comments
19. TC 19

    16 August 2009 at 11:31 am

    Is this an example of ‘tinkerblogging’?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS