Worse and worse

77 comments on “Worse and worse ”

• Comments are now closed

1. notreallyalawyer 1

   4 June 2009 at 11:21 am

   Dover Samuels, – how long did Clark sit on what she knew? About six months. You might not consider the accustions to be just as serious. Others might consider otherwise.

   How long did it take Labour to deal with Fields?
   • merlin 1.1

     4 June 2009 at 11:49 am

     Field lost his ministerial portfolios as soon as the allegations came out against him (that was just before the 2005 election). He was never reinstated.
     • notreallyalawyer 1.1.1

       4 June 2009 at 5:35 pm

       “Field lost his ministerial portfolios as soon as the allegations came out against him”

       how soon was “soon” – less than a week?

       And it took Clark a full year to decide the Field was uinfit to be an MP. About a week for Key.

       But I take it you agree then about Samuels.

       By the way, for the intellectually challenged, this isn’t an attack on Clark, merely pointing out that like it or not PMs have to consider due process and natural justice – which always means taking more time. And they do have to consider how to manage thomgs politically. They are in politics afterall.

       And did National act like Labour is now – yes of course.

       But it is hilarious watching you guys baying for blood. You really don’t see the contradiction do you.
2. Tigger 2

   4 June 2009 at 11:25 am

   According to ACT, Clark was too hard on Samuels…

   http://www.act.org.nz/news/no-good-faith-shown-in-dover-samuels-sacking

   So will ACT be rushing to defend Worth against Key’s dismissal?
3. Sean 3

   4 June 2009 at 11:26 am

   “This just gets worse for Key.”

   No, if anything it gets better because Key has already effectively cut Worthless from the National-led government. As any half decent political junkie would know, it’s not the incident/crisis that causes grief, but how you handle it.
   • calltoaccount 3.1

     4 June 2009 at 11:33 am

     Eventually. Even the current episode looks tardy. Until we hear what Key knew, when he knew it and what he did with the information, we won’t be able to draw the conclusion you are jumping to.
4. tsmithfield 4

   4 June 2009 at 11:30 am

   Here is Goff quoted from that article:

   “The allegations were essentially that Dr Worth had offered a number of different positions that were within his gift as minister to this woman, with the overtones that this was in pursuit of romantic ambitions,” Goff said.

   “One was as an adviser and one was as a board member within the responsibilities of Dr Worth but the overtones were that he wanted to develop a relationship with her,” Mr Goff said on Radio New Zealand.

   Note that Goff did not make any accusations about sexual misconduct here. Just that there were overtones of a “pursuit of romantic ambitions”.

   When we are getting into “overtones”, it becomes very difficult to pin down an actual offence.

   For instance, if I e-mailed a female in the context of a job offer with a phrase like:

   “lets meet up to discuss things and see where things go from there..”

   the phrase could clearly be interpreted as a romantic invitation which may well be the intention of the sender. However, the sender is then in a position to deny that any meaning was intended should the shit hit the fan as there is clear ambiguity. With the above quote, it is clear that the statement could be read in the context of a job interview or a romantic liason.

   I suspect this is what has happened in this case because of the way the Goff has couched his statement so carefully.

   This does not excuse the behaviour of Worth who I see as a sleaze of the worst kind. However, if supporting evidence was not available, then there is little option but to accept the senders word about the intent behind the e-mail.

   To be fair to Key, I think he was more than happy to find a reason to sack Worth given past performance and his liability to the government. So, I think he would have certainly pulled the trigger on the basis of this earlier incident if could find solid justification to do so.
   • merlin 4.1

     4 June 2009 at 11:39 am

     Trying to seperate romance and sex, t? You’re not the first to try it but i can’t see you succeeding.

     You should watch Goff’s interview on Breakfast this morning. He says Worth asked her to buy see-through clothing. If you’re right and there is a meaningful difference between sexual and romantic in this context then it’s clear what side this is on.
   • Pascal's bookie 4.2

     4 June 2009 at 11:41 am

     The emails were personal, they were about ‘do you want to come swimming with me?’ Do you want to take a holiday with me overseas, I want you to buy this see-through clothing. This woman is half Dr Worth’s age, she is a happily married woman with children, she was offended by it.’

     Also from that article I think. At least the version I see. Oversight tsmitty, or selective quotation?
     • tsmithfield 4.2.1

       4 June 2009 at 12:00 pm

       Actually, I must admit that I didn’t read that far down on the article.

       Certainly very sleazy. Glad to see Worth is gone.

       I guess since the e-mails had come from a political opponent, there would be questions about proof that the e-mails had in fact originated from Worth.
       I wonder if that is the point that was not proved. If Worth had catagorically denied sending them, and it could not be proved they were actually generated by him, then he may have got some wiggle room.

       I don’t think the e-mails were actually illegal. Also, I would expect that this woman would have sent a fairly clear and direct response back to Worth when the first e-mail was received. Is there any indication that this actually happened? Otherwise there could be the suggestion that the woman was leading him on for the purpose making some political capital out of it.

       Afterall, the behaviour, although disgusting, is not technically illegal, especially if Worth had reason to believe she was a willing party.
       • bill brown 4.2.1.1

         4 June 2009 at 12:03 pm

         Oh what, you mean if she was asking for it?
         • tsmithfield 4.2.1.1.1

           4 June 2009 at 12:08 pm

           No. It is rather sus that the woman concerned is a member of the Labour Party though.

           What if Worth had a series of e-mails from her saying she was single, keen to get to know him better etc? Would that change your opinion of the situation?
         • felix 4.2.1.1.2

           4 June 2009 at 12:35 pm

           “Would that change your opinion of the situation?”

           That’s not “the situation”. It’s a completely imaginary situation.

           What if Worth had a fridge full of severed heads? Would that change youropinion of the situation?
         • merlin 4.2.1.1.3

           4 June 2009 at 12:36 pm

           It’s not a sign of guilt to be a member of a political party, T.

           I think it’s rather ‘sus’ that you are still trying to make excuses for Worth, even going so far as to event a series of emails that exist only in your head and that no-one (not Worth, not Key, not Goff) has suggested exist.
         • Kaplan 4.2.1.1.4

           4 June 2009 at 12:38 pm

           Nice long drop TS, but it’s time to stop digging now.
         • Pascal's bookie 4.2.1.1.5

           4 June 2009 at 12:47 pm

           Dude that’s pretty desperate.

           Let’s pretend that those emails don’t in fact exist, and that the one’s from Worth are what they appear to be. Do you think Key should have sacked him?

           You agree that they are sleazy, so is that sleaziness ok?

           If it’s not ok, do you think we are entitled to know why Worth was not sacked ?

           If it was all a set up, and Worth can prove that, then I think we should see that proof. Don’t you?
5. jarbury 5

   4 June 2009 at 11:54 am

   Hon PHIL GOFF to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement at question time yesterday that he lost confidence in Dr Richard Worth as a Minister on Tuesday 26 May 2009?

   This should make for an interesting question time.
6. Akldnut 6

   4 June 2009 at 12:13 pm

   John Armstrong “Last week, however, was Budget week – not a time to be sacking ministers unless you really have to.”

   1. Budget week or not Key should’ve sacked him then and there instead of trying to separate this issue from all the other bullshit he inflicted on us.
   2. If this sort of behaviour didn’t fit the “unless you really have to” category then nothing would.
7. Daveski 7

   4 June 2009 at 12:15 pm

   Actually, this could be getting worse and worse for Labour and how ironic is that.

   First, Key has acted cautiously but decisively. HC’s record was likewise patchy and it was her failure to act decisively in a couple of instances that still cast a shadow.

   Keep in mind that any offence is alleged and supposedly Worth is innocent until proven otherwise.

   From a pure Nat perspective, there could be gold in the dirt. Apart from Key taking strong and direct action, the Nats have got rid of a worthless piece of the proverbial and a walking headline.
   • Tigger 7.1

     4 June 2009 at 12:39 pm

     How is this bad for Labour? Key looked like a bungling idiot as the press pulled details from him. He didn’t act decisively at all – he waited. Key has outed himself as having lost confidence last week in Worth, he’s claimed he finds Worth’s behaviour reprehensible (his tone yesterday was judgemental, as though Key was convicted, not just being investigated). So if anyone is guilty of pre-judging Worth, it’s Key. And if the behaviour was THAT bad, why wait so long to act?
     • Daveski 7.1.1

       4 June 2009 at 12:50 pm

       The issue of whether Key acted decisively or not is the key one (pun intended). The balance of opinion appears to support Key even with some reservations. I don’t expect that view to be represented here of course.

       The arcane point is that Key’s actions have little to do with what Worth has allegedly done but because of the way in which he didn’t communicate to his leader.

       Assuming that Key comes out with a pass mark (and it’s not unreasonable to assume this given a wider sampling of views than here), National is much much better off without Worth.
   • The Voice of Reason 7.2

     4 June 2009 at 12:44 pm

     “Actually, this could be getting worse and worse for Labour and how ironic is that.”

     On what planet, Daveski? Here on Earth, Goff is looking like a PM in waiting and John Key is looking like a dithering idiot with serious deficiencies in his team that he is only able to deal with by bullshit, evasion and blind hope that no one will notice.

     And when the reality of the incompetence of one of his hand picked team comes out, he drops them like a whaler drops a baby fur seal. Ask Melissa Lee, she knows only too well.

     captcha; ‘jerkin is’ . Jerkin John?
     • Daveski 7.2.1

       4 June 2009 at 1:08 pm

       As I said tVoR, your view and the standard view (please note small s) on Goff and Key’s relative performance are shared universally. I agree that Key is damned by the actions of his team but let’s not revisit the past eh!

       Getting rid of Worth is actually good news for National. Whether or not Key acted appropriately and in a timely manner is a matter of opinion and opinion appears to be divided on this. Note I’m not trying to push my position but a reasonable analysis of the media and other comments suggests you’re the one who’s misreading this sad tale of events.
     • Tim Ellis 7.2.2

       4 June 2009 at 1:12 pm

       VoR, Mr Goff might have looked like a “PM in waiting” for nine years under Helen Clark, but given his party is trailing Mr Key’s party by twenty percent, and he is trailing Mr Key in the preferred prime minister stakes by fifty percent, it would be a very bold call indeed for you to say he is looking like the “PM in waiting” now.
   • Chris G 7.3

     4 June 2009 at 1:14 pm

     “Key has acted cautiously but decisively”
     “Key taking strong and direct action”

     A re-hashed National press release / parrots in the media talking about the issue.

     Also it read a lot like what tim ellis would post.

     “Nats have got rid of a … walking headline” Why is Melissa Lee still knockin’ about then?
8. Pascal's bookie 8

   4 June 2009 at 12:46 pm

   .
   • Daveski 8.1

     4 June 2009 at 12:51 pm

     I finally agree with you 100% PB 😉
   • The Voice of Reason 8.2

     4 June 2009 at 12:57 pm

     Interesting posting, PB. Is it an artist’s rendition of the inside of John Key’s head? Or maybe the full list of contributions to NZ society that Richard Worth has made?
9. tsmithfield 9

   4 June 2009 at 1:08 pm

   The complaint about the e-mails has the smell of a set-up to me. Similar to the Nigerian scammers that are now developing romantic relationships with unsuspecting victims in order to scam money out of them.

   Heres why I think this:

   1. The woman was a labour party member.
   2. It appears numerous e-mails had been sent by the gormless Worth. Why didn’t the woman forthrightly tell him to piss off after the first one?
   3. What was the woman telling Worth during all these cosy telephone chats? Why did she keep accepting calls from Worth rather than just hanging up on him?

   It seems to me she was trying to egg Worth on in order to drop him in it later on. Perhaps Worth didn’t even know she was married or a member of the Labour party.
   Worth may have raised these points when discussing the issue with Key. Given Keys own experience with the underhanded tactics labour can stoop to, perhaps he believed him.
   • gobsmacked 9.1

     4 June 2009 at 1:19 pm

     Why did she keep accepting calls from Worth rather than just hanging up on him?

     Also, why did she wear make-up and a short skirt?

     Defence tactics SOP: let’s get the victim in the witness box. Bet she’s not a virgin either.
     • WTF 9.1.1

       4 June 2009 at 1:23 pm

       snap, doh
   • the sprout 9.2

     4 June 2009 at 1:22 pm

     an understandable attempt at defence/diversion.

     but IF it were true, what does that say about Key’s gullibility and the chances of him being set-up when it comes to shrewd players like the US on issues like trade deals?

     doesn’t fill me with confidence that we wouldn’t get sold down the river if Key is so naive to possible set-ups.
     • doc whose asking 9.2.1

       4 June 2009 at 1:46 pm

       ullo ullo ullo !!! suddenly went low! low! low!

       As if they would.. do unto an old buddie.. what hath been done many many times afore.. unless the old buddie be known to hath done unto them.. et cetera..
   • WTF 9.3

     4 June 2009 at 1:22 pm

     Yeah tsmithfield you are so right!

     Maybe she was also wearing a short skirt? Maybe she was out late at night by herself? Maybe she got drunk and let herself be drunk in public so men could make advances?

     Maybe she was asking for it?

     Maybe she had had advances from lots of other men and Worth thought she was easy?

     Maybe she consented to advances from Key so Worth presumed he would be sweet as well?

     Maybe she secretly wanted it and no meant yes?
     • titter 9.3.1

       4 June 2009 at 1:43 pm

       Maybe she was Phil Goff in a dress…………. deeeeeeeelightful …. not.
   • felix 9.4

     4 June 2009 at 1:32 pm

     Wow.

     tsmithfeild, I’m interested to hear more of your theories about this and also on sexual politics in general. Please, keep digging sharing your thoughts.
     • tsmithfield 9.4.1

       4 June 2009 at 1:53 pm

       It wouldn’t surpise me if it was a deliberate set-up. Can’t prove it. The facts that are known certainly leave that possibility open, thats all.

       I don’t think she wanted it at all, whatever the truth is. I mean, Worth???
       • the sprout 9.4.1.1

         4 June 2009 at 1:59 pm

         were that the case the facts also suggest Key has handled it very poorly indeed and demonstrated a profound political naivity.
       • Pascal's bookie 9.4.1.2

         4 June 2009 at 2:06 pm

         If it was a ‘set up’, shouldn’t we see the evidence? After all, in itself that is a pretty serious allegation to make against the complainant no?

         If it wasn’t a set up, shouldn’t Key have sacked him?
       • lprent 9.4.1.3

         4 June 2009 at 2:06 pm

         Two different women? One from the Labour side and the other a Nat? Yeah right. Why do I suspect that this will merely be the tip of the iceberg? Having two politically active women affected out of the population of all NZ women makes me suspect that these are merely the ones that did something about it.

         BTW: You interested in buying a bridge? The brooklyn one would look good outside your living room. (you credulous fool)
       • The Voice of Reason 9.4.1.4

         4 June 2009 at 2:26 pm

         Worth set himself up.

         The India trip is a great clue as to how he thinks. Something along the lines of “After a decade in opposition, I’ve finally got the big job. I’m the man! I deserve your fawning.”

         He has a clear sense of entitlement and in both the India trip and the job offer with string bikini’s attached, he has abused his position and authority for personal gain. It should have been obvious to Key after India that he was a liability. If Key wanted to have some ethical authority, that was the time to dump him.

         And then, the second incident, the issue Goff raised, and the appalling emails that were provided as proof, should have seen him sacked. Again, Key sat on his hands. Actually it’s worse than that. He had emails that showed clearly that Worth was an abuser and did nothing. Sick.

         The current incident, whatever it is, was only too much for dithering John when he knew plod was going to be involved. Until that point, Key did not have a significant problem with a minister using his office to curry sexual favours. Worth may be an arsehole, but Key is the arsehole enabler.
10. Pat 10

    4 June 2009 at 2:02 pm

    “Did he bother to ask the woman, or did he just take the word of his mate?”

    Key never had the opportunity to question the woman, because she specifically instructed Goff that she did not want to be named or further involved.

    “Did he look at the emails and phone-logs? How did he conclude then there was no truth to them?”

    No and neither did Goff. Who has seen the emails and phone logs? No-one that I’m aware of.

    So what have is an unnamed Labour party staffer phoning Goff with allegations. Goff phones Key with allegations, but there is no supporting evidence and accuser does not want to be involved further. Key questions Worth who categorically denies everything.

    If you think Key should have sacked Worth over this, then I suggest Goff phones Key with allegations from un-named Labour party staffers against all the other National party ministers. By this standard Key would have to sack his entire cabinet.
    • titter 10.1

      4 June 2009 at 2:07 pm

      Careful Pat if the intellects that thought the trip to Melbourne in an attempt to smear Key was a good idea are still in situ they may run with your suggestion.
    • Pascal's bookie 10.2

      4 June 2009 at 2:13 pm

      “I checked out her story very carefully before I went to the prime minister, she had emails, she had telephone-logs, and the essence of her story was that she had been offered various positions by Dr Worth but … the overtone was in return for a relationship.”

      “The emails were personal, they were about ‘do you want to come swimming with me?’ Do you want to take a holiday with me overseas, I want you to buy this see-through clothing. This woman is half Dr Worth’s age, she is a happily married woman with children, she was offended by it.

      Sounds like Goff has seen the emails and logs to me, but that he doesn’t have copies.
    • Kaplan 10.3

      4 June 2009 at 2:28 pm

      So now Worth, who in Pat’s version of the truth is innocent, just resigned because he felt like?
11. exbrethren 11

    4 June 2009 at 2:17 pm

    Pat “No and neither did Goff. Who has seen the emails and phone logs? No-one that I’m aware of.”

    Reading the stuff report it’d seem Goff has seen them by his quotes.

    “I checked out her story very carefully before I went to the prime minister, she had emails, she had telephone-logs, and the essence of her story was that she had been offered various positions by Dr Worth but … the overtone was in return for a relationship.”

    “The emails were personal, they were about ‘do you want to come swimming with me?’ Do you want to take a holiday with me overseas, I want you to buy this see-through clothing. This woman is half Dr Worth’s age, she is a happily married woman with children, she was offended by it.”

    If Goff has passed on these emails and Key has done nothing but shrug off the accusations then he’s got problems.
12. Pat 12

    4 June 2009 at 2:22 pm

    Goff never passed on the emails. According to Key on Radio Live 1.45pm Goff advised Key during his phone call that he had not seen them.
    • Pascal's bookie 12.1

      4 June 2009 at 2:25 pm

      thnx.

      Wonder if Key asked Worth to show him any emails. Should have.
    • exbrethren 12.2

      4 June 2009 at 2:35 pm

      If that’s the case then Goff has been very foolish in stating what was in the emails.

      If however as Espiner is stating that Labour have emails and letters from Worth to the staffer then either;

      Goff had seen the emails before contacting Key then Key is unclear or lying

      or Goff saw them after he contacted Key, in which case his case isn’t that good.
    • calltoaccount 12.3

      4 June 2009 at 2:37 pm

      Pat: Key’s position hanging by a thread there. Yes, (physical evidence was sited and not properly acted on), and he’s in real trouble.

      Otherwise, it’s on to the issues raised by Cosgrove and Turei in Question Time today (my take being, it seems like Worth was still acting in offical capacities, after having lost the confidence of Key. If so, why?!).
13. exbrethren 13

    4 June 2009 at 2:25 pm

    Interesting stuff from Colin Espiner on this

    “But Key said in that interview that the only investigations into the complaint his office made were to talk to Worth about it, who told them it was untrue. Key’s office did not speak to anyone else, including the complainant.

    I understand Labour has emails and letters on ministerial letterhead from Worth to this staffer. I’d imagine that Goff told Key about this.

    Given the seriousness of the complaint, I’m surprised Key was prepared to let the matter rest. Did he not imagine it would come out at a later date?

    There has been much comment about how emphatically Key has dealt with all this, and favourable comparisons to Helen Clark. Sorry, but I don’t agree. The end may have been swift, but it was a long time coming.”

    Really starting to look like a major Key cockup.
14. sally 14

    4 June 2009 at 2:35 pm

    The complaint about the e-mails has the smell of a set-up to me. Similar to the Nigerian scammers that are now developing romantic relationships with unsuspecting victims in order to scam money out of them.

    The Labour Party member’s allogations weren’t made public until the second allogations became public. Phil Goff chose to act descretly, and trusted Key to investigate the matter further. Hardly how I would have played a stitch up.

    Compare this with Rodney Hide sitting on allogations about David Benson-Pope (ala tennis balls) for years until DBP became a Minister and then went public.
    • Maynard J 14.1

      4 June 2009 at 3:25 pm

      Yeah clearly a set up – Phil Goff decided to let Key know discreetly because he knew two things:

      1 – Key would do stuff-all about it
      2 – Worth was guaranteed to get into trouble again.

      Sure. While both are actually fairly likely, especially the first, what would Goff gain? What’s the point?

      Set-up? That is (and this is directed at tsmithfield) the biggest crock of shit to come out of this thread. Poor innocent Worth falling for the honey-trap? Give me a break. I think your option B below looks more likely.
15. tsmithfield 15

    4 June 2009 at 3:24 pm

    I am just trying to come up with some logical explanation for how Worth could be so stupid. It beggars belief otherwise. Why would he even contemplate offering her a job if he knew she was a Labour Party member for a start? The only explanations I can come up with was that it was either a set-up by someone within Labour, or that Worth is more incredibly stupid and sleazy than I can possibly imagine.

    Looks like Key wasn’t privy to the e-mails, so never got to see the evidence. On this basis, there wasn’t very far he could go with it, especially if Worth was outright lying to him.
    • the sprout 15.1

      4 June 2009 at 3:31 pm

      or it could be that Worth was not so much stupid as seriously deluded
      • Maynard J 15.1.1

        4 June 2009 at 3:33 pm

        Maybe he was taking a new bi-partisan approach to…politics.
    • r0b 15.2

      4 June 2009 at 3:38 pm

      Why would he even contemplate offering her a job if he knew she was a Labour Party member for a start?

      Why would he necessarily know that? It’s not like we all have horns and forked tails or anything.
      • IrishBill 15.2.1

        4 June 2009 at 3:43 pm

        Not that you show in public.
        • r0b 15.2.1.1

          4 June 2009 at 3:51 pm

          Exactly. The little finger is still a give away of course, but we’re working on that!
    • merlin 15.3

      4 June 2009 at 3:59 pm

      come on, T. Join the real world.
16. Pat 16

    4 June 2009 at 4:09 pm

    Everyone seems to be assuming Goff had seen the emails, txts etc when he contacted Key. At no point over the last 2 days has Goff categorically stated this. He has been very careful with his wording.
    • Pascal's bookie 16.1

      4 June 2009 at 4:16 pm

      How much difference does that make though?

      If Key was told they exist, he should probably have asked Worth to front with them. If even only for later arse-covering political reasons.

      Worth was already on his second last chance at least, why take his word for anything?
      • Pat 16.1.1

        4 June 2009 at 4:37 pm

        If Worth states they don’t exist, how can Key ask him to produce emails and txts which he says don’t exist?

        If Goff had the physical emails and txts, and the complainant wanted to pursue the matter, then the onus was on Goff to provide the physical evidence to Key. Or for Key to insist that Goff provide them to him.

        Unless of course:
        a) Goff didn’t have the physical evidence (only the details provided verbally by the complainant) and/or
        b) the complainant didn’t want to take the matter further.
        • Daveski 16.1.1.1

          4 June 2009 at 4:48 pm

          Someone remind me … didn’t Helen take Winston’s word??

          Goff’s undoubtedly deserves some credit for his original actions but since that this has descended into petty political posturing (which I have to say is some of my best alliteration yet!)
          • Pat 16.1.1.1.1

            4 June 2009 at 4:51 pm

            petty party political posturing is even better
        • Pascal's bookie 16.1.1.2

          4 June 2009 at 5:47 pm

          Unless Worth denied that there were any emails at all, which would be unlikely if there were job discussions going on, then that argument doesn’t work. the problem is what the emails said, rather than whether they exist. I’ve not seen any claims that there are no emails from anyone.

          So, if Worth did deny that emails existed, should Key have asked Goff to front with them? I think he should have, rather than just telling Goff that there is nothing to the claims.

          Daveski. Winnie was a coalition partner and the leader of NZFirst. Worth is a National MP, on his second or third last chance. Not the same circumstances. And yet I seem to recall that even then, Key Hide and others were saying that Clark had obligations to not take him at his word but to actively investigate. Did Key live up to that standard? Seeing you brought it up.
17. jarbury 17

    4 June 2009 at 6:09 pm

    Woah….. TV1 news with details on the emails & txts!

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10576462
18. Kaplan 18

    4 June 2009 at 6:11 pm

    I see Worth has pulled out the old “I have not committed any offence’ line.

    But hang on… Even if it can not be proved that Worth was offering a job for ‘romantic’ favours. Does that really matter? The fact he was allegedly offering job’s outside of the normal procurement process is an issue is it not?
19. gobsmacked 19

    4 June 2009 at 6:17 pm

    Key and his spinners: “Goff, put up or shut up! … oh, sh*t, he’s putting up!”

    Statement tabled in Parliament – thwack!

    Worth says he won’t go quietly – thwack!

    Time to Supersize the popcorn … 🙂
20. tsmithfield 20

    4 June 2009 at 6:45 pm

    jadbury “Woah .. TV1 news with details on the emails & txts!”

    Calls and txts actually. Nothing said about e-mails.

    I think it was 40 calls and 60 texts or vice-versa since November.

    I wonder how many calls and texts went the other way from her. It is just inconceivable she would have put up with this barrage for soooo long unless she was a willing participant. What did her husband think and do about all this? Afterall, according to Goff she was happily married.

    I can imagine the conversation:

    Husband: Who was that dear?
    Wife: Just Richard Worth again.
    Husband: What did he want this time.
    Wife: Just wants me to do a bit of skinnydipping with him.

    If this was truly harrasment over this length of time, then why on earth didn’t she or her husband do something about it? Surely the only conclusion can be that she was a willing participant or was trying to set him up.

    One possibility is that she and Worth were forming a romantic relationship and her husband found out. So now she is getting all self-righteous and trying to drop Worth in it to preserve her marriage.
    • felix 20.1

      4 June 2009 at 7:44 pm

      Keep going. They’re getting better all the time.
    • gobsmacked 20.2

      4 June 2009 at 8:11 pm

      Tsmithfield, do you have any understanding at all of power imbalances?

      Woman: private citizen, from conservative Asian culture, respectful of authority, perhaps a migrant (not known), young.

      Man: government Minister, voice of authority, power to grant favours, make threats, exploit her status and his.

      You think this was a relationship betwen equals? Get real.

      “You wanna call the police? Hell, lady, I am the police.”
      • tsmithfield 20.2.1

        4 June 2009 at 8:19 pm

        Having read her statement, I have to agree my previous comment was well off the mark.

        I saw Key on Close Up. Apparently Goff came to him on the quiet about a month ago stating the women had some concerns and asked Key to do something about it.

        Key talked to Worth who denied any wrong-doing whatsoever and was prepared to sign an affidavit to that effect. Keys people went back to Goffs people with this report. According to Key it was a case of He said she said with no evidence either way.

        According to Key, Goff has had over a month to come up with the texts etc to prove the womens case. He has not done this even until today. According to Key if had seen the evidence, Worth would have been a gone-burger.
        • gobsmacked 20.2.1.1

          4 June 2009 at 8:21 pm

          Well, good on you for rethinking anyway.
21. Daveo 21

    4 June 2009 at 7:11 pm

    Woman’s statement now online.
    http://file.stuff.co.nz/dompost/statement.pdf
22. burt 22

    4 June 2009 at 11:30 pm

    ( this comment originally posted in “slippery” by mistake.)

    I think lprent justifies John Keys so called tardy disclosure in this comment;

    lprent: August 28, 2008 at 12:52 pm

    burt: You are just being silly. Looked at the statement and nothing changes.

    She asked Peters if it was true, and he said no. You take the word of ministers.

    Tell me, do you expect PM’s to have a touch of the divine and to be able to see inside peoples heads?

    Reading what the response was to gives it context. Non disclosure over a period of months and months compared to a few weeks.

    Take the ministers word and do nothing was acceptable for Labour eh, but not National.

Links to post

1. She was lying there with her inbox open and her cellphone pulled up « Ideologically Impure: posted on 4 June 2009 at 10:12 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS