National: targeting the victim

Written By: - Date published: 8:45 pm, June 10th, 2009 - 129 comments
Categories: national, richard worth - Tags:

So National’s latest tactic in the Richard Worth affair appears to have been to leak the identity of the first complainant against Richard Worth (the one with all the “textes”).

Why do I say this? Simple. The story that broke on the TV news tonight first appeared earlier today on the website of National Party activist and smear-merchant Cameron Slater. Anyone who thinks this buffoon came up with it himself is dreaming. We all know his record.

The far more likely scenario is that he’s been fed the information by National Party sources like usual. Remember, the woman’s name has already been known within National throughout the Worth affair, and Slater has deep family and personal connections within the National Party. See that fellow with the perm in the image below? That’s  Slater having a casual beer with John Key and Melissa Lee just the other day.

modalities

Now I’ll admit to being a bit bored with this whole scandal, but I think it’s worth understanding what’s happening here. National’s tactic from the start has been to attack the victim at every opportunity to cover for John Key’s failure to deal with Worth, and their fingerprints are all over this latest development. I think their behaviour here says a lot about both their attitude towards women and shows what a fiction the line between the respectable National Party and vile filth–mongers like Slater really is.

– Daveo.

129 comments on “National: targeting the victim ”

  • Comments are now closed

    • felix 1.1
      10 June 2009 at 8:56 pm

      pssst! You’re still doing it.

      • tsmithfield 1.1.1
        10 June 2009 at 9:02 pm

        Yes, I will actually stop repeating myself like that.

        The problem is not only with me though. This is the second thread in the matter of a short time on almost identical content. Why not just stick to the one thread. It makes it a lot easier than having to bounce around all the time.

        • IrishBill 1.1.1.1
          10 June 2009 at 9:04 pm

          This thread is about how the National party launders its smears through Slater’s blog. Keep up.

        • felix 1.1.1.2
          10 June 2009 at 9:16 pm

          Not repeating yourself, moron – you’re still targeting the victim.

          • tsmithfield 1.1.1.2.1
            10 June 2009 at 9:38 pm

            Normally, that is not what I would do.

            However, in this case, I think the lack of evidence produced and the history of the complainant, and the nature of the relationship means it is fair enough to question the veracity of the complainant.

          • felix 1.1.1.2.2
            11 June 2009 at 2:51 am

            1. Only if by “normally” you mean “apart from every word I’ve typed here in the last week”.

            2. You started attacking the victim long before you knew anything about her history.

            3. You still don’t know anything about the nature of “the relationship” apart from what you’ve made up yourself. Surely you’re not about to quote your own imagination as evidence? Oh hang on, that’s exactly what you’ve been doing all week.

            4. “However, in this case” Who the fuck do you think you are? Judge Judy?

    • Draco T Bastard 1.2
      10 June 2009 at 11:47 pm

      Jesus, ts, you really have no grasp on reality do you?

  2. IrishBill 2
    10 June 2009 at 8:56 pm

    Yep, it says the National party research unit has been digging hard. I expect to see more muck raking over the next few days.

    It’s a similar tactic to that used by defense lawyers who trawl through the sexual histories of rape victims.

    • tsmithfield 2.1
      10 June 2009 at 9:04 pm

      No. I have no involvement with the National party research unit. Took about three seconds on a google search. It looks like political research units could become redundant with how easy it is to find information.

      Try googling the name along with “fraud” and see what comes up.

      • IrishBill 2.1.1
        10 June 2009 at 9:08 pm

        So did you come up with “fraud” first up or did you start from the first page of the dictionary of smears and google her name with every word up to fraud?

        • Pascal's bookie 2.1.1.1
          10 June 2009 at 9:22 pm

          Nah first up he was all “she was obviously asking for it, cause it takes two to tango”.

      • Eddie 2.1.2
        10 June 2009 at 9:42 pm

        You don’t have to be directly involved with the Nats’ research unit. You just have to go to Whale Oil to get your lines. He gets the info from the research unit.

        Here’s my own google search results:

        “Mr Slater said he worked with the taxpayer-funded National Party research unit” http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz-election-2008/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501799&objectid=10541397&pnum=0

        • gingercrush 2.1.2.1
          10 June 2009 at 9:54 pm

          Whose lines were you pushing with the following blog posts:

          * The plot thickens?
          * Should Key have appointed Worth at all?
          * Wait, didn’t he say ‘women’?
          * Time for a change
          * Quandary
          * Worse and worse
          * Question time

          Who has been spinning lies for Labour and smearing corrupt charges against John Key? Why you have .You and Zetetic in particular have been post after post making political scoring points over this matter. Some of it genuine. But for the majority you have been making all types of accusations.

          Perhaps, you should have listened to your fellow blogger Irishbill when he said: Call me old-fashioned but the Worth scandal doesn’t really interest me much. In fact I’m of the opinion that Goff and others should just STFU about it now and let process take its course or risk having some of the unpleasantness of it rub off on the Labour brand by association.

          Perhaps you and Phil Goff should heed his advice in future.

          • Eddie 2.1.2.1.1
            10 June 2009 at 10:17 pm

            don’t write long phrases in bold. That’s for the admins.

            I run my own lines.

  3. Nick 3
    10 June 2009 at 9:22 pm

    Jeez TSmfld, dont your fingers get as tired as your brain typing kak all day? Get a job and do a real days work. You and Burt are probably the most tedious jerks I have read for a while.

  4. gobsmacked 4
    10 June 2009 at 9:30 pm

    Interesting comment from Audrey Young:

    “The Herald knew of Mrs Choudary’s identity but chose not to name her until she was named on One News tonight.”

    It’s not much of a Shock-Horror-Scandal when the paper that reported the original story on the woman’s husband didn’t use it to “out” the woman and claim their own scoop.

    No, it took the superior ethics and professionalism of the National party bloggers to do that.

  5. David Farrar 5
    10 June 2009 at 9:47 pm

    People – it took around two minutes on Google to work out the complainant. No legions of parliamentary staffers.

    Why was it so easy? Because Brian Rudman and Phil Goff between them gave enough details to work out who she is.

    And incidentally TV3 told me that decided this morning to name her – before she was named on a blog – based on the fact that the information in the public domain was enough for anyone semi computer literate to work out who she was.

    • gobsmacked 5.1
      10 June 2009 at 9:51 pm

      So why didn’t the Herald name her earlier?

    • Zetetic 5.2
      10 June 2009 at 9:53 pm

      It was your typical play, eh, Farrar?

      You, Whale Oil or the research unit (doesn’t matter which one) get the info. You decide to run it through the party, through Kiwiblog if it’s too rough for the party, or if it’s too dirty for you through Whale Oil.

      Too smart to look an idiot by claiming some big honey-trap so you leave it to dumb-arse.

    • Pascal's bookie 5.3
      10 June 2009 at 9:57 pm

      Doesn’t justify doing it. Or setting your commenters on it. It’s disgusting behaviour David.

      I suppose you’re going to pretend that the party is all pissed off at you and Whale about it too?

      Incidentally, did TV3 ring you, or the other way around?

    • Zetetic 5.4
      10 June 2009 at 9:59 pm

      Have you ever considered the misogyny that runs through all your coverage of issues like this?

      Go on. Paint her as a femme fatale. Dog-whistle that because her husband was convicted of a crime she must be a crim too.

      Then put up some more pictures of chicks with big tits in tight tops.

      • Eddie 5.4.1
        10 June 2009 at 10:01 pm

        Z, I know you’re new here but steady on. Let’s not make it personal.

        • Zetetic 5.4.1.1
          10 June 2009 at 10:08 pm

          fair enough. I’ll take out the personal bits.

          Just makes you sick though, eh? Way they portray women.

    • IrishBill 5.5
      10 June 2009 at 10:01 pm

      David, anyone even vaguely beltway knew who she was. I’m sure you did too. By publishing her name Cameron provided the MSM with the excuse that it was already in the public domain.

      I see he’s also claiming her comments on sari colours implies she’s a sexual predator. Like I said earlier that’s a similar move to digging through the sexual histories of rape victims. Wouldn’t you agree?

      • Duncan 5.5.1
        10 June 2009 at 10:05 pm

        David won’t criticise Whaleoil, he’ll defend him and promote him til the end because he serves a political purpose. It’s a shame because I don’t get the impression David’s a bad person yet he enables such vile behaviour. The fact he knows better almost makes it worse.

      • indiana 5.5.2
        10 June 2009 at 10:08 pm

        Huh? How did you ever come to that conclusion? I thought the picture they were painting was that she is not that naive to know what “XX” in a text message meant, give her knowledge of Indian culture.

  6. mike 6
    10 June 2009 at 9:56 pm

    It’s easy to target the ‘poor’ victim when in real life she’s actually a politically savvy activist married to a convicted fraudster.

    Not the naive, defenceless mother of two that didn’t understand what was happening as the hapless labour leader was peddling
    Phil Goff must have that horrible sinking feeling about now…

    • Zetetic 6.1
      10 June 2009 at 10:01 pm

      So it was ok for Worth to sexually harass a woman because she’s involved in other political party? Weak argument from a weak mind.

      • indiana 6.1.1
        10 June 2009 at 10:09 pm

        Has he(Worth) been convicted of sexual harassment? When did this news break?

        • tsmithfield 6.1.1.1
          10 June 2009 at 10:13 pm

          He was convicted. But she also was actively involved in the fraud.

        • Eddie 6.1.1.2
          10 June 2009 at 10:18 pm

          sexual harassment isn’t a crime. So being convicted of it would be tricky.

          • indiana 6.1.1.2.1
            10 June 2009 at 10:29 pm

            ..Ok, then what about being “found” to be sexually harassing, is that easily proven too? Me thinks based on what is in the public now, that may be hard to cement too…at best Worth’s behavior was/is ill thought out…pretty much what some people have already said.

          • gobsmacked 6.1.1.2.2
            10 June 2009 at 10:41 pm

            Indiana

            So do you think Richard Worth should be forced out of National’s caucus, if there are no charges on the separate case (Korean woman)?

            If so, why?

          • Eddie 6.1.1.2.3
            10 June 2009 at 10:43 pm

            ‘Found’ by whom?

            Do you think there’s a Sexual Harassment guru and they go and ask him whether something equals sexual harassment?

          • indiana 6.1.1.2.4
            10 June 2009 at 10:54 pm

            Eddie, I think you’ve answered my question.

            GS, I’m sure my opinion will be irrelevant, but if you want one, in my view if ministers are performing poorly or act in a way unbecoming of a minister and the PM wants to shake up the caucus, then they should be able to do so.

      • mike 6.1.2
        10 June 2009 at 10:14 pm

        If you think engaging in a text affair is sexual harassment then you need to get out more.

        Wheres the proof? – the bit of 2 way banter we’ve seen about gifts tells me she was very responsive to her ‘harasser’

        Poor woman – I bet when she agreed to play her part in this she was told she could stay anonomous – now her details and her thieving husbands are plastered all over the news. Nice one Phil 🙂

        • IrishBill 6.1.2.1
          10 June 2009 at 10:17 pm

          So what is your threshold for something to be sexual harassment, Mike?

          • mike 6.1.2.1.1
            10 June 2009 at 10:59 pm

            That depends on the respondents replies – but as we are not allowed to see those it’s a bit hard to judge.

            “Leave me alone you disgusting creep” sounds a bit more sus than “…asking if he needs anything while she’s on holiday…”

        • felix 6.1.2.2
          10 June 2009 at 10:25 pm

          “the bit of 2 way banter we’ve seen about gifts…”

          Really? Where have you seen that?

        • Eddie 6.1.2.3
          10 June 2009 at 10:43 pm

          What two-way banter?

          • mike 6.1.2.3.1
            10 June 2009 at 10:54 pm

            “I don’t need anything. Perhaps a tie from the Indian School of Business at Gachibowli but that might be impossible. RWW XX”

            This text is a reply to a question, obviously along the lines of “can I get you something while I’m here? NC XX”

          • felix 6.1.2.3.2
            10 June 2009 at 11:20 pm

            Or just as obviously along the lines of “You need help, you filthy perve”.

            But you don’t know and neither do I so why pretend eh?

          • felix 6.1.2.3.3
            10 June 2009 at 11:32 pm

            Or at the very least you should admit that when you said “2 way banter we’ve seen” you really meant “2 way banter I’ve imagined“.

            We can keep coming up with imaginary conversations if you like but I should warn you I have a pretty colourful imagination.

      • Confucious 6.1.3
        12 June 2009 at 7:49 am

        And that’s you banned for life.

  7. Cactus Kate 7
    10 June 2009 at 10:02 pm

    Brian Rudman slotted the goal this morning.

    The Editor I assume read his column before it was published.

    Good God if Whaleoil actually knew her name before Rudman’s huge tip-off don’t ya think he would have already published it? Doh. His fingers would have been trembling for all of seconds at the keys before he hit the green button on that this morning the moment he found out from Rudman’s tipoff and a quick google.

    Now get her to release more of these texts please. Is there anything more “vulgar” and sexual than Richard Worth’s friendly and polite declining of gifts from India except for a tie?

    Examples would be 1. what he wants her to do with him when his hands are tied up in the tie, 2. how he would like to answer the door wearing nothing but the tie, or 3. how he wishes to use the tie for autoerotic asphyxiation?

    Yeah – thought not.

    Irish Bill – she’s not a rape victim. Come on.

  8. TC 8
    10 June 2009 at 10:04 pm

    Oh dear, the poor lefties have nothing else except come up with some absurd theory that Whale is running interference for National – yawn – it must really suck when the last few smear attempts by Labour have backfired so spectacularly.

    Suck it up ladies.

    • IrishBill 8.1
      10 June 2009 at 10:13 pm

      Well he did represent National on Close Up on this issue and is mates with John Key and has admitted to the NZ Herald that he’s worked with the national party research unit. So I’m struggling to see how the theory is absurd.

      • TC 8.1.1
        10 June 2009 at 10:19 pm

        Ha ha ha, just because he ‘outed’ you lot for what you really were… don’t think you can tar him with the same brush… the VRWC doesn’t require central control!!!

  9. Cactus Kate 9
    10 June 2009 at 10:07 pm

    I was just saying before your edit function did not let me –

    The Key office couldn’t run a piss up in a brewery at present. If they had leaked a name to bloggers, I doubt they would even be competent enough to leak the right one!

  10. dave 10
    10 June 2009 at 10:12 pm

    It is silly to say that this person was outed through National sources when my sources were Phil Goff and Brian Rudman. I suspected who she was. I merely joined the dots and got the same picture confirmed by Brian Rudman’s major clue, and when i got home I posted it.

    So guest poster, stick to your day job. Incidentally I was also told by phone that TV3 were going to run the story. No, I didn’t make the call.

  11. TC 11
    10 June 2009 at 10:16 pm

    Richard Worth wearing nothing but a tie??? Thanks for the visual Cactus Kate… am now going to throw up.

  12. gingercrush 12
    10 June 2009 at 10:25 pm

    I run my own lines.

    We only have your word as evidence. I actually think you do run your own lines. I happen to think Whale does as well. Yet you’re happy to smear Whale aren’t you. You and Whale both have party connections. Therefore in many ways you two are the same. You may cover subjects differently. But at the end of the day. Both of you are connected to major parties and both of you participate on your own blogs. But I am sure both of you run your own lines.

    But instead of posting about politics. Both of you are quite happy to keep smearing each other.

  13. Rodney 13
    10 June 2009 at 10:25 pm

    “The Key office couldn’t run a piss up in a brewery at present”

    surely you dont believe that?

    The national party are working very effectively at this moment to now silence the Korean woman, in fact any woman who raises a complaint of sexual harassment against a national party official.

  14. Eddie 14
    10 June 2009 at 10:46 pm

    The Right, while trying to count the number of angels that can stand on the head of a pin and define sexual harassment for all time, need to remember that Worth denied any dodginess.

    If you don’t deny any dodginess, then he lied to Key.

  15. tsmithfield 15
    11 June 2009 at 6:36 am

    The cat is out of the bag.

    While not convicted of the crime, she was certainly involved closely enough to raise suspicions. So, it is not just a case of her being judged by her husbands actions.

    • Maynard J 15.1
      11 June 2009 at 9:24 am

      But not the suspicions of the New Zealand Police or the courts.

      So, closely enough to raise your suspicions – and we know that means very little.

      Think, just think for once – her husband is convicted – not just charged, but actually found guilty – and she is not even charged.

      Someone suggests ‘she is a troublemaker’ and you are happy to accept that. if that is your standard of proof then you must think Worth is guilty after all.

  16. mickysavage 16
    11 June 2009 at 8:47 am

    When in trouble attack the victim, attack her husband, attack the media, attack anyone, just ignore the original problem which is Worth’s behaviour and Key’s botch up of his sacking.

    • tsmithfield 16.1
      11 June 2009 at 9:04 am

      Mickey, the only evidence of any wrong doing on the part of Worth and this woman is her word. Afterall, there is nothing in the texts produced thus far. Her word must now be brought into question due to her close association with fraudulent activities.

      Putting your fingers in your ears and nah nah nah nah doesn’t change this fact.

      • The Voice of Reason 16.1.1
        11 June 2009 at 9:33 am

        What close association with fraudulant activities, TS? She is married to a convicted fraudster, but there is no evidence of her involvement at all. Unless you think the word of an unnamed taxi driver is now equivalent to a court case and conviction?

        Stop attacking her because of her husband’s misdeeds. It’s creepy, sexist and a diversion from the known facts. Which are that Worth is a cheat and sleaze, that John Key is comfortable with Worth’s behaviour toward the victim and that DPF and Slater are shits of the worst kind.

        • tsmithfield 16.1.1.1
          11 June 2009 at 9:36 am

          Here is a quote from the Herald article from last year I cited above:

          An Indian national now living in the Auckland suburb of Avondale told the Herald he met Choudary and his wife Neelam in 2002 after hearing about the scheme from a friend back in India who read an advertisement in a newspaper.

          The highly qualified 32-year-old was asked to pay $3500 in return for a job offer.

          “They said that if you paid a bit of extra money, they could get the case sped up. They said that they had some contacts with the immigration office people.”

          About five days after their fist meeting, the Choudarys sent the man a job offer working on computers for a company called Xzact.

          The man, who did not want to be named for fear of retribution, submitted the letter to immigration but didn’t hear back from them or Xzact for about eight months.

          He phoned the company to inquire about the job but no one seemed to know about it.

          The Choudarys claimed it was an immigration mistake and the man was sent another letter offering him a job with Denis Hansen’s company Mantech and he was asked for another $3000.

          The man said he was given a business card for him. He phoned the number on the card and claims someone answered saying he was Mr Hansen and that the job was genuine.

          She was definitely involved in the scam to quite a high degree. Do you honestly believe she knew nothing about the fraudulent nature of it?

          They were BOTH involved together in the meeting with the scamee. They were BOTH involved in the phony job offer. They were BOTH involved in fleecing the money.

          • Pascal's bookie 16.1.1.1.1
            11 June 2009 at 10:01 am

            You seem to have much less fear of lawsuits than Worth does ts.

            Brave or just retarded?

      • mickysavage 16.1.2
        11 June 2009 at 10:05 am

        TS

        “the only evidence of any wrong doing on the part of Worth and this woman …”

        Take it up with your leader. He sacked Worth before any of this complaint became public.

        Of course the camel ride, the India trip, the business dealings, and the stuff with the Korean woman have nothing to do with it.

        You are taking the p*ss arn’t you?

  17. The Voice of Reason 17
    11 June 2009 at 9:50 am

    Read it again, TS. It is an unsubstantiated allegation from an unnamed taxi driver. No evidence at all. Do you not think the coppers would have charged her if she was involved? Wake up, FFS, you’re already looking like Whale’s tool, don’t make it worse for yourself.

  18. tsmithfield 18
    11 June 2009 at 10:02 am

    So, do you have any reason NOT to doubt the word of the taxi driver? Or do you intend to do exactly what you accuse me of, and attack his integrity? What motivation would he have for telling lies about whether or not she was included in the meetings?

    Just because she was not charged doesn’t mean she had no involvement or knowledge. Just that the police couldn’t find enough evidence of this to charge.

    I am saying there is enough evidence to be suspicious about the current Worth saga, especially given all the other facts that don’t line up.

    For instance, this women was not the naive innocent young thing as had been portrayed in the media. Yet she allowed this contact to continue for months. Further, she has not provided any evidence of the texts going the other way from her that could support her side of the story if she had been telling him to FO.

    • The Voice of Reason 18.1
      11 June 2009 at 10:36 am

      Yes I have reason to doubt the taxi driver. He or she does not exist, except as an unnamed source. The supposed taxi driver does not say that Mrs Choudary was involved in the scam, just that he met both husband and wife. The use of ‘they’ does not mean Mr and Mrs Choudary made the fraudulant offer. Remember, two people were convicted. So it’s safe to assume it was ‘they’ who made the fake job offer, not Mr and Mrs Choudary.

      You are reading way too much into an unproven, unsourced allegation, TS. Again, if there was evidence of her inviolvement, plod would have charged her. Time for you to apologise for jumping to confusions, I reckon!

      • Tim Ellis 18.1.1
        11 June 2009 at 10:58 am

        Yes I have reason to doubt the taxi driver. He or she does not exist, except as an unnamed source

        VoR, there were many people who were very happy to believe Mrs Choudary’s allegations against Richard Worth when she was an “unnamed source”.

        You are reading way too much into an unproven, unsourced allegation, TS.

        Hmmm. Sounds familiar.

        • The Voice of Reason 18.1.1.1
          11 June 2009 at 11:13 am

          The difference being that Mrs Choudary exists and her name was apparently known in political and media circles prior to you guys outing her yesterday. The taxi driver may or may not exist. Only the journalist knows for sure and if I was her editor I’d be asking her to re-interview the person, on the record, to get the facts.

          Shall we wait for the Herald update or just keep pretending he or she exists?

  19. Maggie 19
    11 June 2009 at 10:09 am

    What’s next? Will the Herald breathlessly report tomorrow that Mrs Choudary’s second cousin was once trespassed by an Auckland supermarket chain for stealing a bag of M and Ms?

    .

  20. tsmithfield 20
    11 June 2009 at 10:19 am

    Pascals Bookie:

    You seem to have much less fear of lawsuits than Worth does ts.

    Brave or just retarded?

    Don’t be an idiot Pascal. Firstly, I am only discussing what was has been reported anyway. Secondly, I have made no claim of criminal involvement. Just involvement.
    If I was going to get sued then so would the Herald last year.

  21. Pascal's bookie 21
    11 June 2009 at 10:27 am

    “She was definitely involved in the scam to quite a high degree”

    “But she also was actively involved in the fraud.”

    “They were BOTH involved together in the meeting with the scamee. They were BOTH involved in the phony job offer. They were BOTH involved in fleecing the money.”

    Are you saying that she was involved as a victim?

    The hearld was reporting what others said. You are making definitive claims.

    • felix 21.1
      11 June 2009 at 10:59 am

      Pb, that was minutes ago!

      You can’t hold timmy accountable for something he said minutes ago. That’s a personal attack.

    • tsmithfield 21.2
      11 June 2009 at 11:44 am

      I have pointed to evidence of her “involvement”. It is possible to have involvement that is not criminal, or even innocent involvement.

      I certainly could not make any claim about criminal involvement and have not done so.

      • Pascal's bookie 21.2.1
        11 June 2009 at 11:51 am

        “I have pointed to evidence of her “involvement'”

        You did much more than that. You said that she was, as a matter of fact, involved in the scam to quite a high degree. Are you unaware of the meaning of the things that you write?

        “But she also was actively involved in the fraud.’

        So what does that mean? In what way was she ‘actively involved’ in the ‘fraud’?

        To me that seems to be saying that she was complicit with, and taking part in, a fraud.

        • Tim Ellis 21.2.1.1
          11 June 2009 at 11:54 am

          PB, this post makes a fairly striking assumption that there has been sexual harrassment, and that Mrs Choudary is the victim of that sexual harrassment. That assumption has not been proven.

          You seem to be very interested in holding ts accountable for his assumptions, but you’re not applying the same standard of accountability to your own team.

          • Pascal's bookie 21.2.1.1.1
            11 June 2009 at 12:02 pm

            Even if true, the worst that that could prove is that I’m a hypocrite. Are you aiming for an ad hominem attack of that nature Tim? That because I am a supposed hypocrite that therefore ts isn’t saying what he is clearly saying?

            Perhaps you could point me to Worths denial?

            And while you are here, you tend to make a habit of pointing out people that you think are saying things that might be slander. I note you make no statement about ts. Interestingly enough.

            and one more: I’m not holding ts accountable for his assumptions, but his statements.

          • Tim Ellis 21.2.1.1.2
            11 June 2009 at 12:08 pm

            PB, given that Dr Worth told Mr Key that the allegations were untrue and that he would sign an affidavit saying they were untrue and take legal action against Mrs Choudary if the allegations were made, I think we can take it for granted that Dr Worth did deny the allegations when they were raised with Mr Key.

          • Maynard J 21.2.1.1.3
            11 June 2009 at 12:14 pm

            Tim, the post implies she is a victim of a National Party smear campaign, nothing to do with sexual harrassment.

            Or are you assuming what ‘victim’ relates to?

          • Pascal's bookie 21.2.1.1.4
            11 June 2009 at 12:14 pm

            So no you can’t point to any denial then. Just assertions that one exists. I agree that it most likely does exist. I’d like to see/hear one though.

            Apparently that alleged denial is in writing. Maybe they should release it. Maybe Key should hold Worth to that affadavit, seeing that was what gave the denial substance. Don’t you think?

      • felix 21.2.2
        11 June 2009 at 12:04 pm

        Yes of course, she could be “definitely involved in the scam to quite a high degree’ and “actively involved in fraud.’ and “involved in fleecing the money” yet mysteriously not involved enough for the police to be interested.

        Could it be because…. hang on, I think I’ve figured it out – you’re just made it up!

        As we’ve all seen, you think “proof” means “I can imagine it happening” so of course you think you’ve provided evidence. But the police don’t, even though they investigated the crime!

        But carry on, the longer you guys drag this out the worse it looks for the nats.

        Keep exposing your true natures for everyone to see. Keep attacking the victims, keep up the lies, keep up the misogyny, and most of all keep up the tone of desperation.

  22. Murray 22
    11 June 2009 at 11:22 am

    Looks like Goffs Dug a big hole for himself and is about to fall in it

    • gobsmacked 22.1
      11 June 2009 at 11:40 am

      I think you’ll find the Supreme Court have just filled the hole and melted all the shovels.

      That’s the news in the real world. But if you want to stay in yours, that’s cool – fantasies are free.

      • Tim Ellis 22.1.1
        11 June 2009 at 11:48 am

        I think you’re right, GS. I think Mr Bain’s chances of getting a large compensation payout have just become very limited.

        • Pat 22.1.1.1
          11 June 2009 at 12:09 pm

          Yep. Bullshit of the Year Award goes to:

          “An exhalation modified by random lip and tongue movement”

          Next Hikoi banner should be NO COMPENSATION

  23. Tigger 23
    11 June 2009 at 11:49 am

    Sadly Maggie, that’s utterly likely…or will they turn on her kids next?

  24. Merlin 24
    11 June 2009 at 12:15 pm

    Tsmithfield and allies. Can you explain why this woman’s husband being convicted of a crime somehow makes it ok for Worth to offer jobs in return for sexual favours?

    • Pat 24.1
      11 June 2009 at 12:24 pm

      It doesn’t. You are assuming that Worth offered jobs in return for sexual favours. Some evidence to back this up would be a good start.

      • Pascal's bookie 24.1.1
        11 June 2009 at 12:28 pm

        I’ve heard the allegation, Key’s got some of the evidence, he should have a meeting to get the rest. He should have done so weeks ago when the alleagtion was made to him in fact.

        I’ve not seen a denial yet, though I’ve heard one was given, with apparently empty promises attached.

        • tsmithfield 24.1.1.1
          11 June 2009 at 12:39 pm

          Pascal, at least there is published eye-witness evidence that the complainant had involvement to some degree with her husband in the immigration fraud. Accusations against Worth here are despite his outright denial and threat to sue. I think that people who are making these unfounded allegations against Worth are on more dangerous ground than anyone.

          • Pascal's bookie 24.1.1.1.1
            11 June 2009 at 12:43 pm

            ‘to some degree’ is not what you said though. You were claiming as fact quite a ‘high degree’ of involvement.

            And it’s an alleged denial. Where is it? What does he actually deny?

            You suck at this.

          • Tim Ellis 24.1.1.1.2
            11 June 2009 at 1:01 pm

            PB, you are correct that there is not evidence of a high degree of involvement by Mrs Choudary in her husband’s fraudulent activities.

            There are low-level, unsourced claims, that Mrs Choudary was involved in the activities which led to her husband’s conviction for fraud. It is a stretch for anyone to claim that she is a fraudster as well.

            There have been some hyperbolic claims about Dr Worth’s conduct towards Mrs Choudary, which have not been backed up by evidence, either. Many of those claims have been made here at the Standard and by Mr Goff.

            The standard of evidence circulating publicly, on which many left-wing commenters here have rushed to judgement on Dr Worth, is no stronger than the evidence against Mrs Choudary’s behaviour.

            I have had doubts for over a week that Dr Worth may have been set up by a Labour Party activist. The evidence that has come to light over the past few days has increased my suspicions that this is the case.

            Mrs Choudary is no innocent, meek, ordinary labour party member. She is a high profile activist. She is actively involved in Mr Shearer’s campaign. Mr Goff knew of her meetings, discussions, text messages and phone calls with Dr Worth from the outset.

            I can’t help but wonder that the timing of these revelations was designed to coincide with the Mount Albert by-election.

          • Merlin 24.1.1.1.3
            11 June 2009 at 1:06 pm

            Tim: “I can’t help but wonder that the timing of these revelations was designed to coincide with the Mount Albert by-election.”

            but it was Key who did made the revelation. Goff kept the issue private up until the point Key said Goff had brought the complaint to him.

            Are you saying he did it on purpose to coincide with the Mount Albert by-election?

          • Pascal's bookie 24.1.1.1.4
            11 June 2009 at 1:06 pm

            The revalations made by John Key you mean? What do you think he was playing at?

            edit:snap!

            See that’s the problem with the “labour plot’ thesis. It needs John Key to be in on it.

          • mickysavage 24.1.1.1.5
            11 June 2009 at 1:20 pm

            TE and TS

            I am not sure why we are wasting time on this. Trying to prove the bleedingly obvious to someone who does not want to see it is such a waste of time.

            The claim of a set up is farcical. Goff did not have to go to Key, all he had to do was drop Worth in it publicly in parliament. So it is sinister that he had a quiet and private chat with Key?

            And timing? Budget day would have been the most opportune time to do so. And Goff did not disclose the complaint, Key did. How many times does this have to be said?

            You are alleging the most sophisticated of stings where the PM has been controlled like a puppet by his opponent. Boy Goff must be good.

            The by election has nothing to do with it. This is actually a distraction and taking up news time that could otherwise be used by Melissa Lee publicly reinserting her foot into her mouth.

            Care to keep digging? We should get you both working on the Waterview connection. The twin tunnels could be dug in no time.

    • tsmithfield 24.2
      11 June 2009 at 12:27 pm

      It comes down to credibility now, Merlin. There have been claims made to this effect. However, no tangible evidence has been produced to show that such offers were ever made. Can you point to any?

    • Tim Ellis 24.3
      11 June 2009 at 12:28 pm

      Merlin, we don’t know if Worth offered jobs in return for sexual favours. None of the evidence so far circulating in the media substantiates anything of the sort.

      I didn’t know that asking about getting a tie in gachibowli was a euphemism for jobs in return for sexual favours.

  25. burt 25
    11 June 2009 at 12:54 pm

    Perhaps she was confused about being offered a job in return for favours. Hell Owen Glenn who is sharp enough to run a multi billion dollar empire even gets confused about this kind of thing. Shall we just drop it all and move on?

  26. Merlin 26
    11 June 2009 at 1:12 pm

    I’m just trying to get this straight. Do Tim and T beleive that there was a honeytrap or that it was all made up, or both?

    One minute they’re saying it’s a honey-trap meaning Worth did offer jobs for sexual favours but it was a set-up.

    Next they’re saying there’s no evidence of any jobs for favours, which means there was no honeytrap.

    The minute after that, T invents some ‘facts’ that no-one involved in the issue has claimed and starts building arguments on them as if they are true.

    I’m with burt. This issue seems settled. The woman’s story has been substantiated by the letter she gave to Key. She’s willing to move on. We should too.

    To the next unanswered question – why did Key fire Worth?

  27. So Bored 27
    11 June 2009 at 1:14 pm

    Ladies and gentlemen, we have 15 rounds at ringside for the World Heavyweight SleazeBag Titlethe contenders…….

    In the Far right corner wearing black, trained by Tim, seconded by Tsmithfield and Burt, the Simply Grierson Goofball, Tiger (cant keep my Dick in my pants) Worth…

    In the far left corner, wearing a nice little red costume, trained by Phill Goff and seconded by Cactus Kate, the challenger Nelam “the trouble maker” Choudhary……

    Many hours (and many low blows) later………..

    The judges are having a hard time, its a split decison……..,

    Ladies and gentlemen, after 15 rounds for the World Heavyweight SleazeBag Title the judges have disqualified both contender and champion and declared the next ranked fighter champion, we have a new Heavyweight Sleazebag Champion of the World…..Whaleoil.. (cheers, booing, etc etc ) ….

    Im am So Bored, somebody wake me up when this fiasco is over.

    .

  28. Pat 28
    11 June 2009 at 1:22 pm

    “She’s willing to move on. We should too.”

    Hmmm. Now that Goff is on the back foot, you want to move on. Fat chance.

    • burt 28.1
      11 June 2009 at 1:44 pm

      Exactly Pat, I think this is just getting started. Wait till Worth drags her (and possibly Goff’s) ass into court. Then the left will understand why you should never get caught engineering a scandal.

    • gobsmacked 28.2
      11 June 2009 at 1:49 pm

      Oh, don’t worry, Pat. Richard Worth is not moving on.

      Goff doesn’t have to do anything. Just sit back and watch one man fight to save his career, while the PM tries to get rid of him. And that will be going on for weeks, maybe months.

      In the end, the only way Key can win in the court of public opinion is by diminishing Worth. And how does he do that?

      By telling the media about the inappropriate behaviour with a woman that led to him being fired. And emphasising how serious it was.

      We look forward to watching the Spin team handle that one. It’s going to be fun.

  29. Pat 29
    11 June 2009 at 1:53 pm

    I hope Worth saved her texts. Probably not.

    If he did then he should release them now. His career is shot so he might as well take a few down with him.

    • gobsmacked 29.1
      11 June 2009 at 1:59 pm

      He might take John Key down with him. After all, Key would be a witness if the police focus on the reception event where Worth and the Korean complainant allegedly dallied (which Key attended).

      Plus there are the National Party staffers who (allegedly) escorted the woman from Worth’s office to the party.

    • Pascal's bookie 29.2
      11 June 2009 at 1:59 pm

      He should at least deny something in public. At the moment he looks like he was lying about that affidavit. God knows why he would lie about that.

      • Tim Ellis 29.2.1
        11 June 2009 at 3:32 pm

        No, PB, he doesn’t look like he’s lying about that affidavit. You are just making the smear that he is lying. There is a difference.

        Barry Soper seems to be saying today that it was Mr Goff’s office that tipped the media off to the existence of the first allegation. Mr Key was asked by the media if there were any other allegations, and he said that there were.

        • Pascal's bookie 29.2.1.1
          11 June 2009 at 4:56 pm

          Come on Tim, you look desperate to catch little old me on a point.

          Key went to Worth with the allegations. Worth, on his third last chance from Mr Strong and Decisive, denied them in some way, and promised an affidavit and law suits if the allegations were made again. Key thus placated, Worth’s job was saved.

          That much is the story according to Key. Since then the allegations have been made in a statement to the House. There has been nothing at all from Worth as yet AFAIK.

          Those are the facts.

          Until Worth fulfills that fairly simple promise of an affidavit it is not a smear to claim that it looks like that promise was expedient and hollow.

          Those are the fact

  30. mickysavage 30
    11 June 2009 at 2:04 pm

    In a parallel universe somewhere there exists a competent generous PM called John Key who was played like a harp by an evil opposition leader called Phil Goff who manipulated him into doing something extraordinary to a hard working Minister called Richard Worth who had previously been crowned Sensitive New Age Guy of the Year.

    In this world Goff and a hardened political activist apparently caused maximum damage to Key and his government by telling him something in private that was not true but nevertheless caused him to act as if it was. This was especially distressing for poor Mr Worth who had no business interests, had never ridden a camel, had never been to India and had never been suspected of committing any crime.

    This reality may exist in a parallel universe but it does not exist here.

  31. The Voice of Reason 31
    11 June 2009 at 2:12 pm

    Good point, Burt. It may be that the job offer was vague, or couched in unspecific terms. But nowhere have I seen an outright denial of the concept that Worth offered a job for sex. If Worth has signed an affidavit to that effect, then I would love to see it.

    It occurs to me that the Police investigation into the ‘other matter’ may be exactly the same behaviour, but with some more solid evidence. I’m assuming here that such an abuse of office is illegal, though it’s not an area of law I’m familiar wiith. I note, despite Worth’s apparent bluster at the time, he hasn’t issued any writs for defamation.

    For what is, um, worth, I think the man did offer Mrs Chaudery work in exchange for sex. It seems entirely consistent with what we (and Key)know of his modus operandi. Whether or not this is a honey trap or whatever is irrelevant to me. If Worth is mug enough to put it on a woman he knew was a Labour party activist, he will fully deserve all that is coming his way.

  32. tsmithfield 32
    11 June 2009 at 3:18 pm

    The Voice of Reason: If Worth has signed an affidavit to that effect, then I would love to see it.

    Don’t think he has gone that far yet. But he has produced a written statement to the PM denying the claims of the complainant. If this is found to be untrue he will probably be excommunicated from the Nats.

    I guess an affidavit would come if anything went to court.

  33. tsmithfield 33
    11 June 2009 at 4:16 pm

    Mickey Savage The claim of a set up is farcical. Goff did not have to go to Key, all he had to do was drop Worth in it publicly in parliament. So it is sinister that he had a quiet and private chat with Key?

    And timing? Budget day would have been the most opportune time to do so. And Goff did not disclose the complaint, Key did. How many times does this have to be said?

    You are alleging the most sophisticated of stings where the PM has been controlled like a puppet by his opponent. Boy Goff must be good.

    There is an alternative theory:

    Goff was desperate for public attention. So he authorised a meeting between the two (note: there is public evidence that Goff did sanction the first meeting)
    There was an attempt at a honey trap that was a total balls-up. Worth couldn’t be enticed to text any really juicy stuff. Phonecalls were recorded. However, the phone records didn’t divulge much useful either.

    Solution: Delete the recordings of the useless phonecalls and invent a story about the content of the phone records. Invent a story about really nasty texts and claim they were deleted.

    Under this theory, the reason that Goff initially went to Key on the quiet was that he did not have enough evidence to make a major splash at the budget or whatever. He did it the way he did because he wanted to score a hit on Worth without embarrasing himself.

    The progress of events now has meant he has had to maintain the story, and in the end has come a gutsa.

    • Maynard J 33.1
      11 June 2009 at 4:47 pm

      What rubbish. What utter rubbish. Have you read your own theory?

      Goff starts out wanting to make a big splash but ends up going to see Key (in private, no less) because he wants to get rid of Worth?

      So…he invents a ‘honey trap’ to make himself popular, but still follows through with it and all the dangers of exposure inherent, because he is desperate to get rid of an ineffectual MP who was busily digging his own hole?

      And let us not forget it only came out because of a completely separate incident! Did MaGoffiavelli engineer that one too, as a pretext for Key releasing information about the first incident?

      Sheesh mate, I think you should take a self-enforced break.

  34. mickysavage 34
    11 June 2009 at 4:34 pm

    TS and TE

    Having been amazed by the incisiveness of your posts I wish to formally acknowledge that you are right and I and all other lefties are wrong.

    I will recommend to Phil Goff that he advises John Key that he should treat the Honourable Richard Worth as if the Choudary complaint about his behaviour had never been made.

    So I therefore expect Worth to, Worth to, er um, still be sacked?

    Has anyone ever called you obsessive?

    • Tim Ellis 34.1
      11 June 2009 at 4:54 pm

      Micky, do you deny that there are several holes in Mrs Choudary’s story, multiple inconsistencies with Mr Goff’s recollection of events, and that he could/should have disclosed from the outset how long he knew about these events taking place, and the high-profile nature of the complainant?

      Barry Soper appears to suggest this afternoon that it was Mr Goff’s office that tipped the media off as to the nature of this second complaint, which is completely contrary to the claims by Left supporters that it was Mr Key who did so.

  35. mickysavage 35
    11 June 2009 at 5:10 pm

    FFS TE

    Stop spinning!!!

    Read the last sentence of my previous post and answer that question.

    The security program for this post is asking me to type the words “erectile belmar”.

    I suppose that this is further evidence of the machivalian ability of Goff who is not only able to make the PM do his bidding but can also persuade a computer program that generates random lists of words to come up with a word that matches Worth’s preferred state and also the name of a town in New Jersey where I bet if you checked Choudary once went to.

    How strange is that? Not nearly as strange as some of the stuff you guys have come up with.

    Where is Agent Molder when you need him?

  36. Pascal's bookie 36
    11 June 2009 at 5:24 pm

    John Key’s read the letter, seen the evidence, and ‘washes his hands’ of Worth according to checkpoint.

    Obviously, this means Goff is a wanker.

  37. Red Rosa 37
    11 June 2009 at 7:15 pm

    Gobsmacked has it. Smeared one, one to go. Couple of days should do it.

    Prediction – Day 13 of the Great Saga, next Friday. Criminal case against Worth collapses. Well, there was never anything in it. Might even get all charges withdrawn if she is hit hard enough.

    John Key will be polishing his apology this weekend. Sad misunderstanding of a dedicated National Party stalwart and hardworking member. Ministerial duties can resume immediately. Any likely backsliders, take note.

    The Honourable Sir Richard Worth can then look forward retiring gracefully and in the fullness of time, as befits a chap.

  38. Cooler 38
    12 June 2009 at 3:00 pm

    Hey I got a nice one GOFF GOOFED.

    If you followed the whole story you would note that Labour specifically Goff played gutter politics and failed.

    No guys Dr Worth or National are not angels. But Goff by stooping down below their level has brought it on themself.

    Do you know Neelam owns a company with her huband and her husband was also Director of a company.

    Do you know the marketing/financial value of photographs with the New Zealand PM and Ministers if you are advertising in India as Immigration Consultant.

    I think it is best Goff comes up clean now and applogises for his handling of this matter. He was abviously smitten by Neelam. (I wonder what Mrs Goff thinks all of this.

Links to post