Why is Whaleoil being pathetic or paid on Toddy?

Written By: - Date published: 11:19 am, June 21st, 2017 - 32 comments
Categories: Abuse of power, bill english, politicans, Politics - Tags: , , , ,

We may never know if Todd Barclay was one of the Simon Lusk / Cameron Slater ‘clients’ as was detailed in the revelations of “Dirty Politics” in the 2014 election. However if you read the Whaleoil today, he has finally received instructions (umm) figured out the spin line … Whatever… It certainly looks like Cameron has gone into spin control mode on behalf of the lying fool – Todd Barclay MP.

But as is usual for this silly bullyboy, he has chosen to blame the victim.

In the now traditional mixture of Whaleoil whining, blustering, and bragging Cameron proceeds to take the phrase “hush money” and act as if it is a real thing – some kind of implied contract.

If she was paid hush money, why has she blabbed?

And, If she has blabbed, surely that voids the agreement and she should pay the money back?

This is real amateur hour stuff from Bill English. His nasty little plot against Todd Barclay is a busted flush, he’s changed his story, lied to media, obfuscated and now the woman who he help arrange a hush payment to has blabbed.

I wonder which fool adviser in Key’s or Bill’s office came up with the cunning plan to buy some silence? It never works, and you get found out, even though you paid. Real amateur hour stuff.

But as we already know, Cameron is pretty shit about understanding legal principles or boundaries or indeed being able to understand the position of anyone apart from his narcissistic self. But we can’t blame the poor lad. In my opinion, he simply lacks the intelligence and basic morality to be able to understand such complex matters.

As far as I can see, what we have instead is a idiot dickhead (Todd Barclay) going far beyond the bounds of behaviour between two parliamentary services employees. After all MPs are also employees of parliament – that is where their pay cheque comes from. He caused through that appalling behaviour the resignation of a fellow employee. This caused a dismissal that could have and probably should have resulted in a employment dispute.

Parliamentary Services paid out a severance settlement to prevent any such employment dispute. As any employment lawyer or professional manager will tell you, this is a pretty normal procedure for employers when dealing with disputes between employees. The settlement would be to prevent a employment legal claim being made against their common employer, and would have been done in accordance with the usual civil service policies. The ‘topup’ from the prime ministers slush fund would have had to have conformed to similar restrictions.

Severance agreements seldom involves having a confidentiality agreement if only because it will come up in the next job interview that Glenys Dickson would have had. In the lieu of a reference from Todd Barclay or circumlocutions from Parliamentary Services she would have had to have been able to explain the circumstances under which she left her previous employment.

It would have been quite unusual for a hush agreement to have been made by Parliamentary Services under the resignation circumstances described.

But I guess that is all beside the point when talking about  Cameron Slater. He just wants to protect Todd Barclay – for some reason.

32 comments on “Why is Whaleoil being pathetic or paid on Toddy?”

  1. Reality 1

    Perhaps he had time overnight to consult his good friend Judith, who of course will be interested in weakening the PM’s hold on his job.

  2. dukeofurl 2

    I think while its Lusk whos writing the Whaleoil stories on this they are only backing Barclay because Lusks arch enemy on the national party board Glenda Hughes is in the anti Todd Barclay camp.

    Could well be Lusk was working for Barclays re-selection, as the curtain has been lifted on selection dirty tricks and branch delegate stacking- which sort of points in an obvious direction.

    Meanwhile Whaleoil has plenty of material to ‘harpoon’ his perennial target – Bill English- now thats written by the Oily Orca himself.

  3. mordecai 3

    Slater has been an opponent of some within National to undermine Barclay, including his arch-nemesis Michelle Boag. Slater is all over English with this, because he wanted Collins to have the top job. Slater is right about many things, but if he’s defending Barclay on this he’s out to lunch.

  4. I assume Slater is paid by the tobacco industry (through Carrick Graham). Todd and Bishop will have been “selected” after a large donation to the National Foundation in 2014 by their former employers, the tobacco industry in order to make plain packaging go away. My guess is Alastair Bell or one of his mates on the National Party board would have acted as a consultant for the tobacco industry and will have personally lobbied for him.

  5. roy cartland 5

    “– for some reason”

    Once again, it could be just dead-cat spin to keep the hype on Toddy and away from the real DP monster, Simon Flood, who will be going for the seat:

    https://www.odt.co.nz/regions/southland/ex-investment-man-challenges-barclay-mp

  6. adam 6

    As usual I see the truth, morality and the law are qualities that evade the slug of Remuera.

    The up side, I get to read somthing funny from lprent.

    Mind you, you do have to wonder why he waded in, sorry, the rhythmic wave muscular contractions on the underside of its foot to get where he wants to be. As so aptly put by “He just wants to protect Todd Barclay – for some reason.”

    This is a faction fight which has spilling out to the open?

    Is this the opening move in what is a all to common event from national? That every-time they look like losing, they start to tear themselves apart.

    Oh well I hope the slug of Remurea can make some more dumb turns, then I will get some more – good giggles.

  7. Cinny 7

    Not sure if anyone actually reads Oil anymore, all they talk about is rugby and food, their comments are way way down from this time last election. Desperate they may be but relevant they sure are not.

    I read a comment on there last night which stated that someone missed out being hired for a job because it was well known that their father was associated with that blog.

    Wondering why the victim blaming only ever seems to occur when the victim is a woman? How dare women speak out, how dare they, they must be up to something, they should just shut up and take it.

    That’s part of what is pissing me off about the whole thing, no matter which political party the victim supports, she has been treated like shit, and even after the payout apparently Barclay continued to run her down, couldn’t let it go, I bet he wants it gone now.

    • lprent 7.1

      Not sure if anyone actually reads Oil anymore…

      I don’t – but that is my impression as well. Fortunately for me, ShakingStick does, and he comes up on my twitter feed.

      When I go for jobs these days, I routinely disclose that there are a number of paranoid nutcases around with somewhat ‘flexible’ (ie no obvious) morals who are likely to be stalking me and my employers to cause mischief. Cameron Slater of section 311 of the Crimes Act being one of them.

      Somehow it never seems to have put off any employer. They’re more interested in my capabilities and skills sets.

      I’d guess that they were either poor candidate for skills or it was just made up. Lots of puffed up aggrandisement on that site.

    • The New Student 7.2

      Whale Oil is pretty much just fan-fiction

    • Sorrwerdna 7.3

      “Not sure if anyone actually reads Oil anymore” -does anyone include you?

      • Cinny 7.3.1

        Let me rephrase, just for you Andrew. Not sure if many people actually read Oil anymore. There is that better?

        As for me, I don’t live in a bubble and from time to time do flick through toxic right wing blogs just to gauge perception and laugh at the spin.

  8. David Mac 8

    How can a first job as a tobacco lobbyist not be an apprenticeship in deception? The truth in that game would see your desk emptied by Friday.

    “We demand that we retain our right to kill people”

    Tobacco lobbyist = A jolly tough sunset task that exists via truth manipulation and a pot of money. The natural environment of the whale…does Todd Barclay go hunting?

  9. Et Tu Brute 9

    With due respect the standard MBIE settlement forms do have confidentiality clauses, non-disparagement clauses and most require a certificate of service to be issued to support the former employee to find future employment. It will generally state in the agreement that both sides decided to mutually end the employment for some reason. Now, this situation is a mess, but no employer in their right mind would pay so much to allow the former employee to still attack them in public.

    • Draco T Bastard 9.1

      IMO, highlighting a crime by the employer isn’t attacking them.

      • Et Tu Brute 9.1.1

        Lodging a complaint with the police would I assume be protected, however one must then ask what was being ‘settled’ if you raise the matter again. Normally it says it is an end to the matter. But Bill English and the leader’s office isn’t the police and continued attempts to push him over (I see he’s now jumped) must involve some level of disparagement. Unless of course she isn’t involved.

        • weka 9.1.1.1

          You also can’t sign away statutory rights so she could still for instance talk to the Privacy Commissioner.

          I doubt she is involved the pressure on Barclay to resign.

          • Et Tu Brute 9.1.1.1.1

            Yet you can raise a complaint with the Privacy Commission, enter into a dispute, and then sign a confidential settlement to make the problem go away. Now, we don’t know, or I don’t know more rightly, whether Parliamentary Services settled via the Privacy Commission or via ERA/MBIE mediation. But I presume there’s no point settling a matter if it still remains a liability for the organization. Would you?

            • weka 9.1.1.1.1.1

              It’s only just gone to the PC and I didnt have the sense they went through formal mediation. See my comment below re agreement.

    • dukeofurl 9.2

      ” pay so much to allow the former employee to still attack them in public.”

      I understand she only spoke out because Barclay earlier this year released a statement defaming her and trying his spin on the ’employment events’

      This was the details as written by Newsroom

      But earlier this year the NZ Herald published a story based on the redacted version of the police investigation file into whether Barclay had breached a section of the Crimes Act around “use of interception devices”.
      In a statement provided to the media organisation
      , Barclay said there had been complaints about the staff member (Dickson), who had been reprimanded.
      “I had received complaints about the conduct of a staff member from members of the public and I referred the matter to Parliamentary Services.
      “As the legal employer of support staff, they acted as they deemed appropriate and embarked on a disciplinary process.”

      essentially he spoke first!
      https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/06/20/35010/allegations-barclay-invented-complaints

  10. Michael 10

    Barclay certainly acted as though Lusk was advising him. Perhaps Stuart Nash could clarify the matter?

  11. Sanctuary 11

    I would say from his posts Slater gets a brown envelope or two from the Israeli government as well. A better match would be hard to imagine.

  12. weka 12

    – – –
    By now Dickson’s lawyer had reached a settlement with the Parliamentary Service. Dickson, Barclay and the Parliamentary Service are bound by a confidentiality agreement so the details of the settlement are unknown.
    – – –

    From the original Newsroom article. So they can’t discuss the payout deal but that’s different than her talking about what went on?

    • Ross 12.1

      The payout deal might have been based on neither party speaking ill of the other and being honest if asked about the matter. When Barclay said that he’d received complaints about Dickson, it could’ve meant the deal was null and void because he was telling porkies.

      Some agreements can involve an employer providing a good reference to a former (aggrieved) employee but I’ve heard various employees complain that they are struggling to find work because their former employer is bad-mouthing them to prospective employers, despite such an agreement.

  13. LivinInTheBay 13

    Barclay was a fool. Bill English is a fool for letting his ex-staffer keep on about it.

    As for WhaleOil it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if he’s getting paid by Barclay supporters and NZF supporters – who was his lawyer in the Colin Craig case?

Recent Comments

Recent Posts