NZ: Home of Rugby, Raping and Beer

Written By: - Date published: 3:30 pm, September 8th, 2016 - 103 comments
Categories: Abuse of power, alcohol, animal welfare, boycott, crime, discrimination, health and safety, Social issues, sport, unemployment, workers' rights, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags: , , ,

Rugby NZ’s entirely predictably whitewash of the Chief’s rugby team’s abuse of a sex worker at a post season party means that the game’s culture of violence prevails. The rugby hierarchy have exonerated the players involved in the abuse, but bizarrely censured players who weren’t even there.

Rather than get an outside investigator, who might have come up with some inconvenient facts, the NZRFU used the services of one of their own staff. The un-named person, is, we are told, a proven lawyer. So that’s alright then. No doubt they came up with the right result for their grateful employers.

Victim’s advocate Louise Nicholas is scathing about the lack of an independent investigation by the NZRFU. But no doubt she knows all too well that the men who run NZ are used to avoiding awkward questions.

NZRFU chief Steve Tew made a total fool of himself on Radio NZ’s Morning Report, arguing that the only problem was hiring the woman. Funnily enough, that’s perfectly legal, and I’ve heard that the NZRFU held an All Blacks piss up at a brothel as recently as last year. Assaulting the woman is not legal, but that’s no bother to Tew.

Here’s what we should be told:

  • Why weren’t the players involved re-interviewed after the victim’s evidence was heard?
  • Why hasn’t the hotel video of the incident been released?
  • Why wasn’t cellphone footage released?
  • Were the so called ‘independent witnesses’ paid by the Chiefs before, during or after the piss up?
  • Who were the players involved and how many of them would be in the All Blacks squad?
  • Who’s idea was it to get a sex worker?
  • Why wasn’t the investigation independent?
  • Why haven’t the Chiefs apologised to the woman?

In the meantime, until we get some real answers, I think the government should immediately break off all contact with NZ rugby and suspend all funding to the game and divert the money to Women’s Refuge instead. John Key should apologise for publicly associating with sex offenders and reiterate that his commitment to the White Ribbon campaign is more important to him that drinking beer with boofheads.

In addition, Steve Tew, Chiefs CEO Andrew Flexman and every professional rugby player in NZ should attend anti-violence classes until they understand what the Waikato players did wrong.

And, no, the the thing they got wrong wasn’t hiring the woman. It was abusing her, then shaming her that’s the problem.

It’s beating the crap out their partners that’s the problem.

It’s living and working in a culture of violence that’s the problem.

Just as an aside, how hypocritical are My Food Bag? The company has dropped its partnership with the Chiefs. Not because of the abuse of the woman, but because the Chiefs hired her in the first place. My Food Bag have a moral objection to the legal hiring of sex workers.

Ironically, the meals at home company source some of their product from the Talley’s group, who regularly break NZ employment law and maim and kill their workers. But that’s not an ethical issue for My Food Bag, apparently.

 

tereoputake@gmail.com

https://tereoputake.wordpress.com/

 

 

 

103 comments on “NZ: Home of Rugby, Raping and Beer ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. b waghorn 1
    8 September 2016 at 3:40 pm

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/84036784/nz-rugby-investigation-into-chiefs-stripper-scandal-bogus-politicians-say

    the minimiser of women’s affairs thinks it’s got nothing to do with her, but i guess when he boss is a known abuser of women it’s hardly surprising.

  2. vto 2
    8 September 2016 at 3:49 pm

    .
    still all men are rapists
    .

  3. Scott 3
    8 September 2016 at 4:03 pm

    They referred to the investigation being undertaken by NZRFU’s Senior Counsel. I did a bit of searching but cannot discover who that is, only who it was back in 2014. I agree is seems strange not to name that person.

    Some of her claims were the sort of things you’d not fail to notice if your there, like being pushed to the ground to have her anus licked against her will (by someone who had not paid her required fee for that activity).

    24 players, some sober but all far from independent, say they didn’t see that (or the other things she alleged that were not properly paid for). 9 people not in the team say they didn’t see that. The police declined to investigate it.

    How much evidence is enough? I get the feeling that some would believe her accusations no matter how much evidence there was to the contrary. Fair enough, but be honest about it.

    Oh, and it is all Key’s fault… sure, yeh, of course it is.

  4. Repateet 4
    8 September 2016 at 4:10 pm

    We are being metaphorically raped daily by the politicians who are pilloried on here. There is ample evidence for me to make both those claims.

    “In the meantime, until we get some real answers”?
    “Here’s what we should be told”?
    “It’s beating the crap out their partners that’s the problem.”

    How about in the meantime until we get some real answers putting the hanging rope down, jumping down off the high horse and give us the real answers of what happened?

    “Here’s what else we should be told – which of the people involved are beating the crap out their partners?” That’s the implication.

    This emotive over-the-top reaction diminishes the cause of stopping domestic and sexual violence.

    Let Tew and the rugby people go to anti-violence classes. While they’re there maybe the author of this rant could take some calm down pills and attend classes on being rational and reasonable.

    We think being done over by Key and co. is bad enough but why acting as ignorantly as him?

  5. vto 5
    8 September 2016 at 4:11 pm

    Why have you attacked the rugby racing and beer generation? You’re about by about two generations

    • te reo putake 5.1
      8 September 2016 at 4:31 pm

      I’m making the obvious point that fuck all has changed since the days of the six o’clock swill in rugby circles. They might like to pretend they’ve moved on, but as this case shows, they’ve learned nothing.

      It’s particular obvious that it’s not the offensive behaviour that they see as the problem, but the fact that it made the media.

      • Scott 5.1.1
        8 September 2016 at 4:39 pm

        But what was the offensive behavior?

        I think hiring her was bad idea, but the post seems to suggest you don’t: “And, no, the the thing they got wrong wasn’t hiring the woman.”

        Look, I’m okay with the idea that you may choose to believe her accusations regardless, but in light of what we learned yesterday you have to accept it is at least possible that she made it up.

        If she has, and you’re okay with them hiring her in the first place, then who are really the victims, and who are really the perpetrators.

        • mauī 5.1.1.1
          8 September 2016 at 5:11 pm

          Yeah and a squad full of 30+ rugby players became strangely silent and couldn’t come up with an alternate view of events, while two seperate women came up with believable stories at considerable risk to themselves.

          The witnesses who we don’t even know if they were present haven’t been able to conjure up a counter story either.

          • Repateet 5.1.1.1.1
            8 September 2016 at 5:49 pm

            We don’t need anyone to conjure up a story or come up with the “real” story.

            We will believe the bits we want to, made up or whatever. Like the bit about a squad of “30+ rugby players.” One account has 24 in the group.

            Like saying they couldn’t come up with an alternate view of events. Do you know that?

            And intimating there may not have been other witnesses. And suggesting if they were there they made up stories.

            So any independent witnesses made up their stories but the complainant didn’t make up or embellish hers?

            • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.1.1.1
              8 September 2016 at 6:46 pm

              Not the point. The NZRFU, and The Chiefs, have a massive conflict of interest and handled it extremely poorly, to say the least.

              Stripping and prostitution are legal activities, Any moral issues that attach to them apply equally to service providers and clients alike.

              The allegation is (at the very least), that a sexual assault occurred. At this point it might be that various individuals are accessories after the fact.

              Uncomfortable, eh. Do your principles apply when the going gets tough, or are they just rank Tory lip-service?

              • The lost sheep …
                8 September 2016 at 7:41 pm

                The allegation is (at the very least), that a sexual assault occurred

                Well, no, Scarlett made no allegation of sexual assault.
                She was perfectly happy to have her anus licked by strangers, and was in fact retailing this product on the night.
                Her complaint centered around the theft of said product, in that ONE individual made off with said lick without paying.
                So the crime was financial rather than sexual in nature.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  8 September 2016 at 7:49 pm

                  Lip service it is then.

                  • The lost sheep …
                    8 September 2016 at 7:58 pm

                    Ah, that i had lips that tasted so sweet that punters were willing to pay 50 bucks for a single lick.

                • reason …
                  8 September 2016 at 11:43 pm

                  I find it outrageous that Tls is saying the cheifs are thieving arse lickers …..

                  If this is indeed normal New Zealand rugby player behavior …. then it becomes clear just how but not who poisoned the all blacks in south africa when they lost the 1995 world rugby cup final ……

                  The All Blacks had just licked the wrong butts ……….

                  But more seriously ….. Drunk rugby players acting like pack animals towards women has a long tradition …… stretching back to and before our new zealand rugby union with their team mates national ruined the Montreal Olympics by supporting racial Apartheid ………http://montrealgazette.com/sports/montreal-olympics-african-boycott-of-1976-games-changed-the-world

                  Rugby has a history of dragging New Zealand morals through the mud ….

                  No wonder our national team have a pony tail perv for a mascot …….

                  • Repateet …
                    9 September 2016 at 1:42 pm

                    Rugby has a history of dragging New Zealand morals through the mud in contrast to our politicians who have been and are always moral. As well as the mass of the public who in their fits of moral outrage morally call for the hanging top at the hint of an allegation.

                    • reason …
                      9 September 2016 at 6:40 pm

                      The Lost Sheep seemed to be so certain about New Zealand super 15 rugby players licking Anus …. it sounded like a fact.

                      The allegations themselves seem to be growing … “New Zealand Rugby investigators never spoke to one of the two women who claim to have been abused by Waikato Chiefs players while performing at their end of season functions.

                      The stripper, known as Laura, says players groped her inappropriately and spat beer on her in 2015.

                      Her allegations came to light after another stripper complained of the same thing happening at this year’s event.” http://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/chiefs-investigators-never-spoke-to-me—victim-2016090817

                      Politicians partner up with rugby as the example of when we (New Zealand) ruined the Montreal Olympic games shows …… rugby union needed Nationals help to put us on the world stage like that.

                      “A 1973 tour to NZ was blocked by PM Kirk, in 76 the All Blacks went to South Africa ……. Twenty eight African countries led by Congo, boycott the Montreal Olympics because of New Zealand’s participation.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/17/newsid_3555000/3555450.stm

                      Being one of the last countries in the world supporting Apartheid and the violence it was using were very bad morals ……………. just not to rugby union and their national party political enablers who put rugby above things like right and wrong …..

                      But back to the present with our drunken rugby players and the standards of behavior presently on display from them …. and the rape culture excuses from sober apologists .. ..

                      Both players and their fans often display the morals of sexual predators and violent thugs …… http://www.vice.com/en_au/read/why-i-hate-working-my-strip-job-on-big-rugby-game-nights

                      They need to clean up their act, get of their addiction to Alcohol industry money and stop advertising that drug to our children and the young…….I expect them to do zero out of the three.

                • framu …
                  9 September 2016 at 7:46 am

                  “Well, no, Scarlett made no allegation of sexual assault.
                  She was perfectly happy to have her anus licked by strangers, and was in fact retailing this product on the night.”

                  so by this logic raping a prostitute isnt rape

                  well done

            • mauī 5.1.1.1.1.2
              8 September 2016 at 6:48 pm

              I heard 40 players when the news broke, but hey why are we arguing over numbers when noone really knows.

              Have you heard any Chiefs player talk about the incident since it happened? I haven’t, nor have I have heard any good explanations from management about what really happened.

              I used the term story because one side usually has the correct story of what happened. The absence of a story in court can mean guilt, you’re hiding something, making it damn hard to defend yourself .

              • Repateet …
                9 September 2016 at 1:50 pm

                The absence of a story can mean guilt. The absence of a story could mean innocence. The absence of a story mainly means the absence of a story.

                An idiot hack host on radiosport said the rugby people “swept it under the carpet.” The same idiot hack host on radiosport said there’d been “no consequences” for the rugby players involved. Consequences for what? And no consequences?

                In his hysteria he did not explain why all matters in his business with personnel are not carried out in full public view. Every damn statement, every damn question, every damn person involved out in public in front of cameras. He expects that of the rugby people, you know, people in the same business as him, entertainment .

        • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.2
          8 September 2016 at 6:18 pm

          But what was the violent behavior[sic]? FIFY

      • vto 5.1.2
        9 September 2016 at 6:28 am

        trp “I’m making the obvious point that fuck all has changed since the days of the six o’clock swill in rugby circles.”

        So what the fuck used to go on in th days of the six o’clock swill? And try some facts, for once in this post, not just assumptions and prejudices.

        That generation had more manners and good behaviour in one finger bone than someone like you would appear to have in your entire body. It certainly had better behaviour and manners than this current young generation of rugby players and people in general.

        You are way and miles off the mark, letting your bitter prejudices override common sense and facts, and firing off without knowing what went on anywhere really… not in the 50’s, not at the strip with the Chiefs..

        Keep that hatred of men strong trp… it’s a great look

        • te reo putake 5.1.2.1
          9 September 2016 at 7:01 am

          Get a grip, vto. Your rose tinted idea of what life was like back then is ridiculous. We were a sullenly violent country, with wife beating perfectly acceptable. Where do you think the concept of ‘just a domestic’ grew from? Politeness was beaten into our kids and it was considered polite for adults to turn a blind eye to violence. It’s not man hating to want this shit to end. It’s in men’s interest’s that it does.

          • vto 5.1.2.1.1
            9 September 2016 at 7:21 am

            Perhaps you have a point and you occupy one end of the spectrum and me the other….

            I don’t think such broad all-encompassing generalisations are helpful at all though, in fact they are unhelpful in that they demonise an entire generation and everyone in it, making them all out to be drunken violent bastards. It divides and hardens. Just like people who scream generalisations about cannibals roaming these islands before the civilised Europeans arrived…

          • Repateet 5.1.2.1.2
            9 September 2016 at 7:17 pm

            We may have been a sullenly violent country. Now we are hysteria driven with a pack hanging mentality. NZ Rugby were dumb to not use some outsider to carry out the investigation but even more dumb to not expect irrational responses.

            The likelihood of an outsider coming to the same conclusions as whoever did the investigation is probably good. The likelihood of the same conclusions being greeted by the response there has been, great. An independent coming to the same conclusion as those reached would have drawn criticism of a cover up. That’s how we roll.

            • te reo putake 5.1.2.1.2.1
              9 September 2016 at 7:37 pm

              I don’t think the response to the cover up is either hysterical or irrational. I think it’s entirely reasonable to call bullshit on the internal ‘investigation’. There has been outrage from many, many kiwis who think that these behavioural failings, both by the chiefs and by the rugby union, are unacceptable in this day and age. I think that’s a really good thing and look forward to incidents like this never happening again. But then, I’m an incorrigible optimist.

  6. Macro 6
    8 September 2016 at 4:39 pm

    “In the meantime, until we get some real answers, I think the government should immediately break off all contact with NZ rugby and suspend all funding to the game and divert the money to Women’s Refuge instead. John Key should apologise for publicly associating with sex offenders and reiterate that his commitment to the White Ribbon campaign is more important to him that drinking beer with boofheads”

    Quoted for Truth.

    However I won’t be holding my breath.

  7. The Real Matthew 7
    8 September 2016 at 4:43 pm

    The strippers elaborate story was found to have little substance when compared with the versions of independent witnesses. In other words the strippers version of events was nothing more than a fabrication. A nobody trying to gain fame by falsely accusing successful rugby players of something they didn’t do.

    But hey let’s not bother with the truth, lets just bash a culture we don’t like and drag John Key into it because….. ummmm…………

    • Siobhan 7.1
      8 September 2016 at 4:50 pm

      So, say you had a complaint against a large and powerful organization, and your claim was investigated by their Lawyer, their employee, a person paid good money to protect their reputation….who found that you had no complaint to be answered…you would think that fair enough??

      • Scott 7.1.1
        8 September 2016 at 5:08 pm

        Add in that the police declined to investigate.

        I know what you’re saying, but they had an employment issue to deal with, and undertook an investigation that was quite normal in those circumstances.

        I also think the NZRFU actually wanted to know the truth. Actually, I think they would have been surprised by the outcome and would have expected some of the accusations to be made out (I did, I expected some truth and some exaggeration). And I’m sure that they would have rather found out the truth and dealt with it than risk having is come out later (say cellphone footage or something emerges next week).

        No, I think the idea that there would have been pressure on their investigation person to sweep this under the rug is a bit conspiratorial, and ignores all modern advice on how an organisation should manage such things: Find it all out, own it, address it, move on.

        • mauī 7.1.1.1
          8 September 2016 at 5:19 pm

          Ha, I wouldn’t want you investigating anything if you think doing an in house investigation that doesn’t speak to the complainant is getting to the truth of the matter.

          • Scott 7.1.1.1.1
            8 September 2016 at 5:33 pm

            As I understand it they did speak to her.

            • Ross 7.1.1.1.1.1
              8 September 2016 at 5:38 pm

              Police said they spoke to the stripper.

              • Scott …
                9 September 2016 at 12:10 pm

                Yes, and so did the NZFRU investigator (although people complain on her behalf that was not until late in his investigation but I fail to see how that matters).

            • mauī 7.1.1.1.1.2
              8 September 2016 at 6:04 pm

              Steve Tew said on RNZ they couldnt contact her and didn’t interview her until very late in the piece. Do we take Tew at his word? That’s his side of the story. We have no idea what was said in an “interview”.

              Tew went on to say that everyone knew the woman’s side of the story from the media reports, which hardly gives much confidence in the interview process.

        • Siobhan 7.1.1.2
          8 September 2016 at 5:21 pm

          Add in that the police declined to investigate. Hmm. Ever heard of Roast Busters??
          My thoughts on this whole case are probably not quite what you think, but I’m a big fan of Justice not only being done, but being seen to be done.
          And I’m just not that convinced that is the case here.

        • b waghorn 7.1.1.3
          8 September 2016 at 5:42 pm

          ”Add in that the police declined to investigate.”
          The police not investigating means little. they tend avoid cases they are unlikely to get a conviction in, now what’s the odds of a stripper with a legal aid lawyer beating a rugby club with with the sort of doe the chiefs have do you think.

        • Stephanie Rodgers 7.1.1.4
          8 September 2016 at 6:03 pm

          The police chose not to investigate out of respect for the wishes of the woman involved – who from day 1 of this had said she didn’t have much faith in the police process.

          Spinning this into “so obviously nothing happened” only shows that you have a deliberate agenda of minimising violence against women.

          As for NZ Rugby wanting the truth? If they had, they would have spoken to BOTH women who made allegations against the Chiefs, and wouldn’t have had their pet in-house lawyer run the investigation.

          By any objective measure, this whole thing stinks, and only the people who desperately, desperately don’t want to confront the reality of violence against women cry otherwise.

          • Ross 7.1.1.4.1
            8 September 2016 at 8:14 pm

            Similarly anyone who spins this story by saying that something must have happened would be gilding the lily.

            • miravox 7.1.1.4.1.1
              8 September 2016 at 9:15 pm

              Strangely an investigation to find out what ‘something’ happened came out with results that are as clear as the winter mud on a rugby field.

              Btw TRP, a pertinent post.

          • The Real Matthew 7.1.1.4.2
            8 September 2016 at 10:55 pm

            I have no such agenda of minimising violence against women.

            I believe in an evidence based judicial system. In this instance the evidence presented by the stripper differs markedly to the evidence provided by everyone else.

            The people making a big deal about this are the sort of people who instantly think a man is guilty every time a women makes an accusation.

            • mauī 7.1.1.4.2.1
              8 September 2016 at 11:11 pm

              Yup, the evidence presented by the rugby crowd was a big large zero. Even with dozens of friendly witnesses present and all sorts of video tech available. Your evidence ain’t worth shit.

            • framu 7.1.1.4.2.2
              9 September 2016 at 8:03 am

              by pretending that using an in house lawyer running a private investigation is the same as using the judicial system you are minimising the issue

              FFS – the mere possibility of group sexual assault (because thats what it technically is) should be enough for those investigating to take it seriously and do the job properly without opening doors for claims of a whitewash to arise. Thats how you remove any doubt from your side of the story

              the fact they did it in house means the dont see it as a serious enough issue to warrant conducting a water tight investigation

      • Scott 7.1.2
        8 September 2016 at 5:39 pm

        In the context on a complaint against at employee that may impact on their employment it is normal for the investigation to be undertaken by senior management. I guess by getting the lawyer to do it that hoped that would be one better But I agree, an independent person would have been still. But whomever they hired for the task would have been on their payroll, and I suspect an unsatisfactory choice in the eyes of some if they reached this conclusion.

        • framu 7.1.2.1
          9 September 2016 at 8:05 am

          “In the context on a complaint against at employee that may impact on their employment”

          you might want to try “a complaint against multiple employees that may impact on their criminal record and liberty”

          its a little more than an employment matter scott

          • Scott 7.1.2.1.1
            9 September 2016 at 8:25 am

            The investigation had no impact on their liberty. That is the police’s job and they did not think there was reason to investigate it further than they did (which seems to be been just the initial assessment).

            As far as the NZRFU were concerns they had an employment issue to investigate.

            • framu 7.1.2.1.1.1
              9 September 2016 at 12:43 pm

              “The investigation had no impact on their liberty.”

              of FFS scott – the CLAIM, if true, has the POTENTIAL to impact on their liberty

              you can be pretty certain that the police might have another look if new evidence came to light or people started saying that they saw the assault happen. Drop the dumb red herrings

              edit – seems the police are having a second look. You still think its just an employment issue scott?

              • Scott …
                9 September 2016 at 3:19 pm

                I realize that, but the investigation I was talking about was by their employer – last time I checked by boss didn’t have the power to chuck me in jail.

                I don’t understand why the police didn’t investigate it more seriously, I wish they had (or will). But that is not the NZRFU’s fault, and it is the NZRFU’s investigation I was talking about. Read before you abuse.

                As to your edit: Yes, but I never said it was “just” an employment issue. Regardless of anything the police did or do, the NZRFU still had and have an employment issue to resolve – they are the employer of these men, and that is what they were doing.

                [you’ve had multiple warnings, and been told already why the police didn’t take the issue further. Banned for 1 week for running rape apology lines and for repeatedly lying about the police investigation in a way that implies no assault tool place – weka]

                • framu …
                  9 September 2016 at 3:34 pm

                  “Yes, but I never said it was “just” an employment issue” – whatever, spin it how ever you want to over as many comments as you can muster

                  your continual semantic minimisation and trying to have a bob each way on this issue is a load of cobblers.

                  its as bad as your cries of faux abuse.

                • Scott …
                  9 September 2016 at 3:42 pm

                  to Weka

                  You told me the other post was not the place to discuss this. Fine, despite you not making the same point to others on there that were towing the party line I came back here, your the boss. You did not explain that I must agree with the consensus or stop.

                  As to the Police, with respect, we have not been told why the police didn’t take it further. I understand the Police have said that they took into account the evidence and the wishes of the complainant. That is a complete non-explanation. It doesn’t even say that the complainant didn’t want it taken further. But if that was the reason then I hope she changes her mind and the police do investigate it.

                  [the reason for your ban here is because of the insistence that the police chose not to investigate and didn’t say why, with the implication originally that there was no case. If you think that taking rape apology arguments to another thread about rape culture is acceptable then you’ve just discovered that it’s not. I have given moderator notes to other commenters not just you. You don’t have to agree with the consensus at all, you just have to understand that running rape apology lines is not acceptable in threads where women should be able to feel encouraged and safe. If you don’t know how to behave in that context, stop and listen. Read the Policy esp about wasting moderators time – weka]

      • Lanthanide 7.1.3
        8 September 2016 at 5:48 pm

        Depends on whether I knew the grounds for the complaint were genuine or not.

    • Scott 7.2
      8 September 2016 at 4:59 pm

      I thought the NZRFU people were good in how they worded it. They did not say she made it up, and indeed we cannot rule out all of the other people including the independent witnesses are in fact lying just as TRP gallantly assumes and the police are incompetent for not taking action – but that all just becomes pretty damn unlikely.

      The NZRFU stuck to the line that her version of events was not corroborated by the other witnesses. And that is a statement of fact.

      But if she has made it up, the real victims are the players (absent any blame you see in them hiring her in the first place), their families, the team organisation that has lost sponsors and maybe the NZRFU itself. If that is the case the then real perpetrators are the accuser, but I’d say more so the media that feasted on this as if her every word was fact and anyone that doubted her a blasphemer.

      • mpledger 7.2.1
        8 September 2016 at 10:08 pm

        And wasn’t she on to a winner by making these complaints.

        The fame, the fortune…

        • Scott 7.2.1.1
          9 September 2016 at 12:19 pm

          I’d have thought the police were the right people for her to go to, and if she was dissatisfied with their response then maybe a letter to the NZRFU.

          But whatever her reasons were, she is the one that chose to make this a media frenzy and it is the media and the keyboard warriors that have made it the talking point it is. You cannot blame the players, the Chiefs, or the NZRFU for that outcome.

          A winner? Not in my eyes anyway, but I suspect many out there would say she is.

          Financially? I don’t know, maybe, they say any publicity is good publicity and she got her name, photos, and services well publicized. I don’t know if she was paid for her interviews (I doubt it but you never know). There may well be a women’s mag story to be paid for in the next few months…

          • Psycho Milt 7.2.1.1.1
            9 September 2016 at 12:32 pm

            I’d have thought the police were the right people for her to go to…

            Go read today’s General Debate thread on Kiwiblog and you should be able to figure out why a stripper might be reluctant to take a complaint of sexual assault by local heroes to the Police.

            But whatever her reasons were, she is the one that chose to make this a media frenzy…

            She did? How? Ordinary proletarians don’t get to choose what the media run with, they only get to be the willing or unwilling objects of those choices.

            You cannot blame the players, the Chiefs, or the NZRFU for that outcome.

            We can’t blame the players for putting themselves in this situation, quite possibly by actually committing the crimes they’ve been accused of? Oh, fuck yes we fucking can.

            • Scott 7.2.1.1.1.1
              9 September 2016 at 3:30 pm

              re (1) I will have a read at some point.

              re (2) She went to the media – that was her choice. If you tell me she didn’t realize they would think it a great story then I call porkies. But I put most blame for the frenzy on the media who exploited her and the situation for all its worth.

              re (3) I was talking about the media frenzy, I expect it has not been much fun at all for her, regardless of what her expectations were when she went to the media in the first place. But she sought out the media, not the players, the Chiefs, or the NZRFU. If that choice has impacted her badly (as it may have), it was nevertheless her choice.

          • mpledger 7.2.1.1.2
            9 September 2016 at 3:41 pm

            I can imagine the women’s mag story – it’ll be product placement for the NZR – because they’ll pay for it rather than the mag having to fork out to pay Scarlett.

            “AB wives and gfs overcome heartache after stripper attempted to ruin their lives.”

            And I’ll guess we’ll get variations of this meme too…
            http://www.theonion.com/video/college-basketball-star-heroically-overcomes-tragi-19097

  8. Guerilla Surgeon 8
    8 September 2016 at 4:54 pm

    “In the meantime, until we get some real answers, I think the government should immediately break off all contact with NZ rugby and suspend all funding to the game and divert the money to Women’s Refuge instead. John Key should apologise for publicly associating with sex offenders and reiterate that his commitment to the White Ribbon campaign is more important to him that drinking beer with boofheads.”

    Never. In. A. Million. Years. Never apologise, never explain is their mantra.

  9. Ross 9
    8 September 2016 at 5:07 pm

    I would’ve thought the most obvious question is: why didn’t police lay charges? Presumably the answer is that there was no realistic chance of a conviction due to a lack of evidence. If that’s the case, it seems a little off to hang, draw and quote the players. Having said that, rugby and league players have a history of doing dumb things, typically after consuming booze.

  10. Colonial Viper 10
    8 September 2016 at 5:30 pm

    Expecting Chiefs ticket sales to plummet now.

  11. One Anonymous Bloke 11
    8 September 2016 at 6:26 pm

    Question. You have two choices: paying to rim a stripper or paying for a table at Cabinet Club. For all practical purposes, the transactions are identical.

    Which do you choose?

    • Colonial Viper 11.1
      8 September 2016 at 6:28 pm

      Technically, not an either/or

      • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1.1
        8 September 2016 at 6:33 pm

        For the purposes of this thought experiment, you are not allowed to choose both options.

        Edit: nah what the hey, pick both if you like.

    • McFlock 11.2
      8 September 2016 at 6:44 pm

      Semantically, if you’re paying to rim someone then I suggest that they’ve moved on a bit beyond stripping…

      Anyway, unless the stripper was quite my cup of tea, I’d probably go with the cabinet club. One should always be courteous to “strippers”, but with tory ministers you can call them fuckwits and announce that any money you paid to CC will be trebled to go to Labour.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 11.2.1
        8 September 2016 at 7:54 pm

        Tory Ministers, strippers, whatever: no matter how much you pay them they never stay bought. (Dubious metaphors aside) The only way to win is not to play.

        • McFlock 11.2.1.1
          8 September 2016 at 11:06 pm

          Hey strippers work hard for their honestly earned money.
          Tory ministers do the exact opposite.

        • The lost sheep 11.2.1.2
          8 September 2016 at 11:09 pm

          And there’s the rub eh?
          You can get your jollies off where ever you choose or not choose.

          Ain’t modern democratic secular societies a miraculous thing!!!!!

          • One Anonymous Bloke 11.2.1.2.1
            9 September 2016 at 7:46 am

            I realise that paying for access to ministers seems completely natural to you.

            • The lost sheep 11.2.1.2.1.1
              9 September 2016 at 8:37 am

              About as natural as charging strangers $50 for tongue access to your arse.

              But why pay for something you can get for free? I’ve never been asked to pay.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                9 September 2016 at 8:54 am

                natural

                Your moral judgements apply to clients and providers alike. The allegation is that one or more of the johns committed a crime.

              • Psycho Milt …
                9 September 2016 at 12:38 pm

                I’ve never been asked to pay.

                No doubt, but we’re not discussing the initiation rites of Tory clubs here.

  12. The New Student 12
    8 September 2016 at 6:38 pm

    There’s nothing wrong with hiring a stripper to strip or a sex worker to sex. What’s wrong is expecting/demanding duties that fall outside of the agreed terms. What’s wrong is forcing that worker to do so against their will. Innit?

    Sure, the woman who performed as “Scarlette” overstepped professional expectations by accepting a proposition from a single customer. Does that mean she deserves to be mauled by the entire group? That she be forced to perform other duties or acts outside of her job description. Yeah nah eh. Both parties have contributed to the mess but I think the lion’s share of responsibility is rightfully with the Chiefs organisation.

    There’s nothing wrong with a bunch of people taking pleasure from a stripping performance. There’s something mighty wrong when instead the entertainment is derived by abusing the performer. Unfortunately that attitude is not limited to boozy rugby heads.

  13. Colonial Viper 13
    8 September 2016 at 7:07 pm

    So what’s the conclusion then? Organise a boycott of next years Super Rugby?

  14. stunned mullet 14
    8 September 2016 at 7:46 pm

    What’s your sport of choice TRP ?

  15. corokia 15
    8 September 2016 at 7:49 pm

    “Here’s what we should be told:………Who’s idea was it to get a sex worker?”

    Is it fair to call a stripper a ”sex worker”?

    What I remember from comments made by her when this first came out in the media, was that she is a stripper, there to perform a striptease. Not a sex worker aka prostitute. They paid to look, not touch.

    It looks like these guys don’t understand boundaries unless they are painted with white paint on grass.

  16. James 16
    9 September 2016 at 7:25 am

    The tag stripper was always a media beat up. She took money to allow people to lick her ***hole. She’s a prostitute.

    She should be called as much in the papers.

    By not doing so just shows bias in the article.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 16.1
      9 September 2016 at 7:40 am

      Any moral issues that attach to prostitution apply to providers and clients alike.

      There is more than a hint of violence in your attitude.

    • framu 16.2
      9 September 2016 at 8:09 am

      whoop dee friggity doo – none of that changes the issue of consent does it

      cmon guys – your letting the side down with this kind of bullshit

  17. James 17
    9 September 2016 at 8:06 am

    Nope not violence in my attitude.

    And no moral judgements.

    I’m just saying if she’s a prositute – she should be referred to as a prostitute not a stripper.

    No moral judgements or violence of attitude. Just honesty.

    What’s your objection to calling a woman who takes money for sex acts to be called a prositute ?

    Does the word make you uncomfortable?

    • Robert Guyton 17.1
      9 September 2016 at 8:09 am

      Same reason Key’s referred to as a money changer, James.
      Does that tag make you uncomfortable?

      • James 17.1.1
        9 September 2016 at 9:13 am

        It didn’t offend me. It makes me laugh that people harp back to that as opposed to saying he is the PM.

        If you are going to call him a money changer (not the proper title) at least be smart enough to use the past tense.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 17.2
      9 September 2016 at 8:29 am

      Do you need English comprehension lessons? If I ‘objected’ to something it’s the violence in your attitude.

      • James 17.2.1
        9 September 2016 at 9:15 am

        So you are happy that we call her for what she is – a prositute- it’s just that you see violence in my comment? What part of my original comment indicates a violent attitude to you ?

        Always curious how precious people are and would love to understand your thought process

        • One Anonymous Bloke 17.2.1.1
          9 September 2016 at 9:23 am

          The allegation is that one or more of her johns assaulted her. Bullies need their toadies, and then you came along.

    • mpledger 17.3
      9 September 2016 at 9:14 am

      Given they hired her as a stripper than that should be how she should be referred to.

      If you want to also add that she is a prostitute than I don’t think anyone minds, except perhaps some of wives and girlfriends of the rugby johns, who might be a tad unhappy to know their boyfriends and husbands used the services of a prostitute.

      Anyway, given your comment, it makes me think they should change the chief’s name to the Waikato Punters.

    • Psycho Milt 17.4
      9 September 2016 at 12:40 pm

      Does the word make you uncomfortable?

      No, but the malicious intent behind this particular example of pedantry does disgust me.

  19. Brigid 19
    9 September 2016 at 11:00 am

    “We are pleased the allegations are unsubstantiated”
    but
    “…what happened at both events and the fact others didn’t step in to stop it, is something as a club we have had to deal with the consequences of”

    http://d3nd7i493f0o21.cloudfront.net/assets/upload/366108/1878066951/ChiefsRugby_2016-Sep-07.jpg

    So I think the Chiefs CEO Andrew Flexman has a little cognitive dissonance going on.

  20. rhinocrates 20
    9 September 2016 at 5:48 pm

    Apologies if this is doubling, but The Spinoff shows just how much bullshit has been heaped up by the NZRFU: http://thespinoff.co.nz/media/09-09-2016/some-awkward-questions-about-nz-rugbys-report-into-abuse-claims/

  21. Philj 21
    9 September 2016 at 10:53 pm

    Oddly when interviewed by John Campbell on RNZ, and asked if there were all blacks at the function, Rugby Union boss Steve Tew said Sam cane was not present although he could not or did not name any of the All Blacks that were present as he could not remember. It is notable that during this sorry episode there has not been a mention of the All Blacks involved in this incident. mum’s the word. Ruby culture is an oxymoron.

  22. NZJester 22
    28 September 2016 at 6:29 pm

    The notification for this and another story only just arrived in my inbox last night.
    Was the notification part of the server down for a couple of weeks?
    Thuby is what I call it. They are becoming thugs even on the field. I see so many people spitting in the street these days too. All following the example of rugby players on the field.
    There seam to be one rule for the rich and famous and another for everyone else.