The plot thickens?

35 comments on “The plot thickens? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. dave 1

   9 June 2009 at 11:50 am

   Of those five bullet points, nearly all that was in the public domain already. It’s not new. New to you, perhaps. What is new is that Goff didn’t have the texts. He didnt ask for them, Now he it trying to get them. But the woman doesn’t have them all. Perhaps Goff was blinded by the woman’s “striking attractiveness” to remember relevant details. Perhaps if she was a little uglier he`d have the texts.
   • gobsmacked 1.1

     9 June 2009 at 12:13 pm

     Eh? What are you on about, Dave?

     Worth’s resignation (sacking) was entirely unrelated to the other (Goff) issue.

     When did the PM answer yesterday’s questions previously? When did he, in fact, give the reason for Worth’s departure?

     Why did Worth go?
     • Mr Magoo 1.1.1

       9 June 2009 at 12:58 pm

       gobby please keep up.

       The fact that it was a sacking at all was a revelation. In fact Key stated explicitly that “if he hadn’t resigned I would have sacked him”.

       It was pretty clear that he was supposedly not sacked until now.

       But I am sure helen would have been given the same sort of leeway in the taito and winston incidents…

       oh wait…
       • Pascal's bookie 1.1.1.1

         9 June 2009 at 1:18 pm

         How does this new line work?

         “if he hadn’t resigned I would have sacked him’.

         means it was a resignation. Oh I get it, that was the old story. Now he’s changed his tune and said he sacked him. That’s not a revelation, it’s a contradiction. A lie.
         • Zaphod Beeblebrox 1.1.1.1.1

           9 June 2009 at 1:26 pm

           Its like “Men in Black” when Will Smith waves the wand and we all forget about the first press conference.
           Dick Cheney thinks he has one of those as well
           Melissa Lee needs to have one whilst campaigning.
         • Mr Magoo 1.1.1.1.2

           9 June 2009 at 1:27 pm

           I have said gobby when I meant davy. Posts were too short. 🙂

           I am basically saying what you are saying…

           bah..that will teach me to post while eating lunch..
2. tsmithfield 2

   9 June 2009 at 12:42 pm

   Here is a quote from DPF which sums up my key arguments except better:

   You have to say that as a sexual harrassment advocate or advisor, Goff is not going to be your first choice in future. Look at the record:

   You approach him days after the alleged harrasment starts. He doesn’t even advise you to keep the messages, or make notes at the time of the phone calls.

   1. He doesn’t give you any advice on how to get the harassment to stop,

   2. Amazingly he lets you endure 100 unwelcome phone calls and text messages over three months, without telling you how to get them to stop.

   3. He waits three months until after the last message to then raise the issue.

   4. In raising the issue, he doesn’t ask for copies of any of the messages, does nothing to compile a bullet proof case. He just makes a phone call.

   5. When the other party”s boss comes back in a week saying no action can be taken as it is denied, you accept this and do nothing.

   6. When it then goes public, he mixes up key details.

   7. He then labels the complainant as “strikingly attractive’

   8. He advises the complainant that she should bring him along as a support person to a meeting – so it is all about him, not her.

   9.He advises the complainant not to hand over the text messages, despite having complained previously they were not asked for

   Whatever job Goff will be doing after politics, it won’t be as a sexual harrassment counsellor or advisor!

   This is starting to just look very sad on Goffs part.
   • gobsmacked 2.1

     9 June 2009 at 12:53 pm

     Another Goff diversion. You’re really showing how weak Key’s performance has been.

     Anyone want to defend the Prime Minister? Anyone want to comment on topic?
   • merlin 2.2

     9 June 2009 at 1:35 pm

     Weren’t you lot saying the other day that it was dodgt that Goff had advised the woman to keep records of the phone calls and texts? Now it’s his bad for not advising her to do that?

     Anyway, so what if Goff’s not an expert on dealing with sexual harrassment? He shouldn’t have to be, he’s the leader of the Opposition. It’s National Ministers who are doing the harrassing that’s the problem.

     I note that this DPF person’s points are all premised on the sexual harassment claims being true.
   • Kevin Welsh 2.3

     9 June 2009 at 3:06 pm

     ts, that resistance you are feeling…

     … it’s called the bottom of the barrel.
3. tsmithfield 3

   9 June 2009 at 1:04 pm

   gobsmacked: “Anyone want to defend the Prime Minister? Anyone want to comment on topic?”

   Yeah. Hard to do this without pointing at Goffs miserable failures though.

   1. Key did effectively fire Worth. He told him resign or be sacked. In an employment court this would be a very clear example of a “constructive dismissal”.

   2. I am trying to understand the rest of the points made in the article above. It sounds like the writer wants Worth back if he is found not guilty of a criminal offence??? Obviously, there is behaviour unbecoming a minister that is not necessarilly criminal. Key obviously has evidence of this, hence the dismissal regardless of whether criminallity is involved or not.

   3. So far as conflicting information from Goff based on Goffs notes is concerned, Goff got the time of the conversation wrong on those notes. Goff had the timing of the call placed at when Key was in a plane so couldn’t have physically taken the call. It seems clear that Goff has made up these notes after the event otherwise he would have got the time right. Therefore, I much prefer Keys version of the events.
   • gobsmacked 3.1

     9 June 2009 at 1:06 pm

     Goff got the time of the conversation wrong on those notes.

     No he didn’t.

     Goff right. Key wrong. With documented proof.

     http://blogs.nzherald.co.nz/blog/audrey-young/2009/6/9/goff-right-key-wrong/?c_id=280&objectid=10577381
     • Pascal's bookie 3.1.1

       9 June 2009 at 1:22 pm

       Oh noes!

       Now the PM has no cred in ts’s eyes, because he has been caught in a ‘proven lie’.

       That was his story yesterday about the complainant. But in that case there was no lie, so he had to walk it back.
   • Kaplan 3.2

     9 June 2009 at 1:32 pm

     Geez TS. Way to score an own goal. How’s it feel knowing JK lied to you about being on a plane at that time?

     Care to re-evaluate any of the other claims you have been making based on the assumption that Key speaks the truth?
4. tsmithfield 4

   9 June 2009 at 2:21 pm

   This proves exactly what I was saying. If Goff had taken his notes at the time of the call, he would have had the time range precisely right rather than being four minutes out.

   He has actually proved that his record of the conversation was constructed after the event rather than at the time due to his own admitted inaccuracy.
   • gobsmacked 4.1

     9 June 2009 at 2:28 pm

     Oh, I had my money on “Phone records rigged by Labour hack in Parliamentary Services”. You’ve done even better, smithy.

     If Key is smart, he won’t bullshit like you. A quick apology, and the story dies.

     He used to be smart. Not so sure now.
   • merlin 4.2

     9 June 2009 at 3:14 pm

     yeah, the file note was constructed after the phone call, a few minutes after. Goff said after the phone call he noted the details, then a few minutes later wrote them into his file. And he rounded the time! Call the cops!
5. tsmithfield 5

   9 June 2009 at 2:34 pm

   Didn’t say anything about them being rigged.

   The call ends outside the range stated by Goff meaning he estimated. If he checked the times he actually started and finished the conversation he would have got them right instead of estimating. This is more consistent with him basing his record on his memory of the call instead of taking the record at the time of the call.

   Do you disagree with this analysis? If so, why?
   • Kaplan 5.1

     9 June 2009 at 2:45 pm

     I disagree with it. In fact I would suggest that if someone where to go back and recreate events afterwards they’d check the records they know exist and make the entry exact.

     Converse to your assumption I argue the slight variance in fact proves the authenticity of the diary note.

     As an example. I am looking back in my own diary right now. I have recorded a meeting that took place at 10:00am yesterday. Now I happen to KNOW that it actually started about 5 mins late but does that mean my notes for the meeting are factually incorrect?
6. felix 6

   9 June 2009 at 2:45 pm

   If you accept the phone records as genuine (which you do, above) you must also accept that Key was not on a plane until 10 as he claimed.

   Key has been caught in a lie. Again.

   Just about time to hang up the old “tsmithfield” joke and try on another sockpuppet I think. I wonder if you have any idea how much damage you’ve done to Key over the past week.
7. Kaplan 7

   9 June 2009 at 2:48 pm

   And yeah… what felix says.
   Honestly TS… you are taking self delusion to new levels here.
8. tsmithfield 8

   9 June 2009 at 3:20 pm

   Kaplan: I disagree with it. In fact I would suggest that if someone where to go back and recreate events afterwards they’d check the records they know exist and make the entry exact.

   Converse to your assumption I argue the slight variance in fact proves the authenticity of the diary note.

   As an example. I am looking back in my own diary right now. I have recorded a meeting that took place at 10:00am yesterday. Now I happen to KNOW that it actually started about 5 mins late but does that mean my notes for the meeting are factually incorrect?

   This is the most intelligent attempt at a refutation rather than just personal abuse, so I will deal with this one.

   Firstly, the point being discussed is whether the notes were recorded some time after the call. I am not discussing the accuracy or otherwise of the notes referred to at this stage.

   Secondly, this does not seem to the same as a scheduled appointment or the like. It seems like a call that Goff made that he recorded the start and finish time for, so it should be accurate.

   Thirdly, if I was making record of a call, I would firstly check the time before starting the call, record that detail. Then I would make the call. Then I would record the finish time. So then the actual call itself would have fallen within the recorded boundaries rather than being outside them. In this case the call ended outside the recorded boundary, which seems to suggest the timing of the call was noted sometime after, rather than at the time.
   • aj 8.1

     9 June 2009 at 3:40 pm
     • felix 8.1.1

       9 June 2009 at 3:46 pm

       Yes, quite.
     • Ianmac 8.1.2

       9 June 2009 at 3:50 pm

       Are you suggesting that Sir (Why else bring back the knighthoods?) John is ‘armless? Ha ha! 🙂
   • felix 8.2

     9 June 2009 at 3:45 pm

     Oh sowwy wittle smitty, didn’t know you were such a delicate wittle fwower.

     Either you accept that the phone records are accurate or you don’t.

     If you do, then Key is lying.

     If you don’t, then your whole bit about Goff’s records being a couple of minutes off falls down.

     You choose.
9. Hard 9

   9 June 2009 at 4:00 pm

   Eddie
   Fetish with dirty old men?
10. tsmithfield 10

    9 June 2009 at 4:11 pm

    felix: “Oh sowwy wittle smitty, didn’t know you were such a delicate wittle fwower.”

    LOL. Not at all. Just like to engage in objective debate thats all.

    felix: Either you accept that the phone records are accurate or you don’t.

    If you do, then Key is lying.

    If you don’t, then your whole bit about Goff’s records being a couple of minutes off falls down.

    Not quite. I will reserve my position in case Key produces flight records that prove his point that he was on the plane at 10.00. Then there is a conflict of evidence, isn’t there?
    • Maynard J 10.1

      9 June 2009 at 4:38 pm

      “I will reserve my position in case Key produces flight records that prove his point that he was on the plane at 10.00. Then there is a conflict of evidence, isn’t there?”

      Can we then throw him in jail for answering his cellphone on a plane, since Goff’s phone records show that Key answered his bloody phone at eleven to ten?

      I have to say of all your “spirited” defences this one is the funniest, most truly pathetic and just plain sad.

      Goff says when phone call was.

      Key says phone call could not have been then because he was on a plane.

      Goff shows evidence to prove he is right.

      Tsmithfield makes up some story that does not fit with anything anyone else has read to pretend Goff is wrong. Did you read this bit:

      “The file note was headed 9.45 – 9.55 pm. Key dismissed that at his post cabinet press conference yesterday saying “that can’t be right because I got off the plane at 10 pm.” Phil Goff has just retrieved his own phone records of the call made from his desk at Parliament to Key’s cellphone. The call started at 21.49 (11 minutes to 10 pm) and lasted 8 minutes and 30s. That means that Goff is substantially correct.”

      Another story in the Herald says that “Goff says he called at 9.45pm.” So he was out by 4 minutes – that is an acceptable variance – what was all your rubbish about writing down when you started the call, then writing when you finished, so the call was in the middle? Christ – some people write things after the call. That does not make them liars. Saying you were on a plane so you couldn’t have answered your phone, that is lying. As Goff has proven, to everyone else apart from you.

      So, what is your next flawed defence to be?

      Guys, want me to take the next shift?
11. felix 11

    9 June 2009 at 4:33 pm

    Sure. It’s your imaginary situation, you can have conflict of evidence in it if you like. Back in reality-land however there is no such conflict.

    The conflict that we do know of is the conflict between Key’s lie and the telephone record.

    You’re slipping btw. Last week you were making things up and pretending they were true. Now you’re making things up and pretending they might come true later. It’s one step closer to reality I suppose.
    • Maynard J 11.1

      9 June 2009 at 4:43 pm

      Next he will say that Goff’s record does not prove he spoke to Key, that it was possibly an answerphone. This is becoming a joke.
      • Go Hard 11.1.1

        9 June 2009 at 4:52 pm

        I am glad you got the punch line.
        Its all hearsay.
        Even poor old Bain was convicted on less.
12. tsmithfield 12

    9 June 2009 at 4:52 pm

    My point is that there has been no comment at all from Key on this. What if his phone shows the call came at the time he said? Then someone has the time on their phone set incorrectly, haven’t they?

    Anyway, even if Key does turn out to be incorrect on this it makes him just as much a liar as Goff when he claimed there were e-mail records when in fact there were texts when in fact they have been deleted.
13. grannyh 13

    9 June 2009 at 5:06 pm

    This entire he said she said story line along with the hint of scandal sexual overtones is the kind of cak that would make a good article in the womens weekly but you sad tosspots (posters and commenters) can’t seem to get enough of it.

    The best commentary I’ve seen was from Irish ………..

    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/first-moves-on-holidays-act-reform/

Links to post

1. Bryan Spondre: posted on 9 June 2009 at 1:57 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS