Why didn’t Goff out Worth earlier?

89 comments on “Why didn’t Goff out Worth earlier? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. mickysavage 1

   5 June 2009 at 3:06 pm

   Yeah

   The wingnuts on Kiwiblog are frothing this up into a major conspiracy. Apparently the victim by not complaining publicly is somehow responsible for Worth’s behaviour and Goff by trying to deal with it discretely is part of the conspiracy.

   Shades of the rape victim “had it coming”.

   Do they have no scruples or decency?
   • The Voice of Reason 1.1

     5 June 2009 at 3:11 pm

     I heard Whale once had scruples, but the doctor gave him something for it and he’s all better now.
   • felix 1.2

     5 June 2009 at 3:14 pm

     It’s not just on the bog either – check out tsmithfield’s rather revealing thought processes right here on this thread yesterday. Throughout the day he insists that she must have either been enjoying it or leading him on, even that she probably started it. Amazing.
   • Pascal's bookie 1.3

     5 June 2009 at 3:15 pm

     I like the one about how “because Key was lying when he said he thought Helen should have investigated Winston, Goff is a hypocrite, which is the most important thing”

     That one’s awesome.
   • r0b 1.4

     5 June 2009 at 4:01 pm

     So Key had multiple reports of Worth’s behaviour, undertook no real investigation, and did nothing. Worth kept offending until the police got involved.

     Key owes both the women involved in this a huge an public apology, the first for his failure to believe her, the second for his failure to act in time.
     • calltoaccount 1.4.1

       5 June 2009 at 4:47 pm

       Exactly. I posted before on this, but hesitated to get Key and crime into the same sentence. This time I will.

       I think if Key had properly dealt with these issues in the first place, Worth would have been unable to use his position in such a way that a lady felt a crime had been committed and the police should be called.

       This whole issue is incredibly disappointing. I think an apology would be entirely appropriate.
       • calltoaccount 1.4.1.1

         5 June 2009 at 5:13 pm

         Update: According to National Radio, after Key saying he would rearrange his schedule today to meet with one of the ladies concerned, apparently now he won’t.

         Maybe tomorrow? Or not? Who knows? Certainly not the lady in question. Beyond a joke.
   • dave 1.5

     6 June 2009 at 12:34 am

     I would have thought a better questin was As Key wants to see the texts, if Goff has them, and knows that Key wants to see them, why doesn’t he do so?
     • calltoaccount 1.5.1

       6 June 2009 at 2:19 am

       What does it take to get Key to move, blasting powder? Honestly, you ask for action, you expect a result, not half baked rubbish, excuses and asking other people to do the job. Hasn’t learnt obviously, look what happened Friday.
2. Kaplan 2

   5 June 2009 at 3:16 pm

   In my opinion this kind of desperate spin is only resonating with those that would continue to vote national under almost any circumstance regardless.
3. Jasper 3

   5 June 2009 at 3:20 pm

   The cynic in me is saying Key held off on voicing the fact that he “rapudly rescindud his er, ah, um, confidunce in the minusta” until after Budget Day so that the media could focus on a Richard Worth beatup, and not on the NZSF being raped and pillaged.

   Worth is a shitstorm anywhoo, but wheres the thoughful and insightful MSM detail on how the NZSF will equate to total yearly taxes being potentially as high as 47 -51% in 2030 for those aged 20-40 now, in order to adequately service super using the same 66@65 methodolgy?
   • Pascal's bookie 3.1

     5 June 2009 at 3:22 pm

     That’d be the 40% on shore PPP fandago dance of the disappearing securities I assume?
     • Jasper 3.1.1

       5 June 2009 at 4:09 pm

       You got it PB.
   • jagilby 3.2

     5 June 2009 at 7:30 pm

     “how the NZSF will equate to total yearly taxes being potentially as high as 47 -51% in 2030 for those aged 20-40 now”

     That’s absolute rubbish and you know it…

     The postponement of super contributions only equates to an extra 3% of the super bill being footed by taxpayers or 0.2% of GDP you economic numpty… how does that equate to an extra 10% in income tax? (on which marginal rate are you talking too???).

     That’s not even taking note of the fact that you are taking 40 YEAR forecasts as gospel and that a tax structure could be unrecognisable from that now (who know what recommendations could be implemented as a result of the tax working group… broader tax base etc).

     “Borrowing to play on the stock market”… I’m sure you’d all be howling that from the rafters if they had continued payments. You’ve all lost your fucken minds, the polls should come as no surprise but you’re all so blinded by your mindless ideology to see it.

     Absolute tripe.
4. gobsmacked 4

   5 June 2009 at 3:22 pm

   “Key then took Worth at his word”

   Worse, in fact. He delegated to a staff member, who had to take Worth at his word.

   This is the vital point that has been overlooked in most media coverage. John Key, who famously said he wanted to “look his Ministers in the eye”, heard these allegations of sustained sexual harrassment and did not even have a conversation with Worth. .

   Forget the politics for a moment. There’s a simple test here. Imagine you’re a manager/boss (some of you may be), and you are told of these serious allegations against an employee. What do you do?

   We all know the answer. “My office, now.”

   John Key failed a basic leadership test, and it’s increasingly clear he knows it.
5. sonic 5

   5 June 2009 at 3:24 pm

   The fact they are reduced to such desperate spin shows how much trouble they are in, Worth is not going to go quietly either.
6. burt 6

   5 June 2009 at 3:29 pm

   Indeed. Worth should have held up a big “NO” sign then you lot would say it was valid for Key to take him at his word and that we should all move on. There would have been no need to sack him and/or have the police investigate.

   Some people are slow learners and/or they forget to apply the proven formula for holding onto their job irrespective of what they did.

   lprent – can you explain to me why saying the allegations should be tested in court makes me part of a lynch mob – do you think we should just move on?
   • Pascal's bookie 6.1

     5 June 2009 at 3:34 pm

     But he did hold up a big no sign burt. Key said ‘sweet’. That’s his perogative, but a political problem. Key (unlike Clark) had no excuses, political or otherwise, for not investigating.

     Do you think it’s ok for Hide to help prop up such a government?
     • burt 6.1.1

       5 June 2009 at 3:48 pm

       Pascal’s bookie

       If Hide votes to validate Worth’s behaviour and kills a court case against him I’ll be spitting tacks – I’m sure you will be this time as well. Only one of us will have been consistent over time.
       • Pascal's bookie 6.1.1.1

         5 June 2009 at 3:53 pm

         I thought you said helen’s failure to investigate was corrupt. Highest standards and all that?
         • burt 6.1.1.1.1

           5 June 2009 at 4:02 pm

           So is it corrupt or not? What do you think?

           I think it was for Helen because she knew Peters was telling porkies – did Key know the facts?

           Clark talked to Glenn – he told her…. Oh that’s right Glenn was confused…

           Did this woman tell Key ? How did he know what was true other than what Worth told him?
         • Pascal's bookie 6.1.1.1.2

           5 June 2009 at 4:11 pm

           Key didn’t even ask to talk to the woman burt. He avoided the facts like the plague about an MP in his own party.That’s the whole point. I don’t think that is corrupt. I think it is stupid, and shows a terrible lack of judgement about a whole host of issues. especially given the nature of the complaint.

           I can’t see any excuses for it. You seem to think that your perception that Pascal’s bookie is a hypocrite is worth mentioning. Which is strange, I guess you’ll admit.

           I don’t see much similarity between the cases myself, so I don’t feel like a hypocrite, but no matter, if you think I am one, I’ll stipulate that for the sake of the argument.

           Now, do you think it is corrupt?

           do you think Key was lying back then about what was appropriate for Helen to do?

           How about Hide? Should he keep propping up key’s government?

           Can you support that?
         • mike 6.1.1.1.3

           5 June 2009 at 7:44 pm

           “Key didn’t even ask to talk to the woman burt. He avoided the facts ”

           PB you know that’s a lie because as Goff even points out she did not want to come out about it. We are still waiting for the facts – the emails have disappeared and we are still waiting for the text proof.

           Its getting harder to support this woman by the day…
         • Pascal's bookie 6.1.1.1.4

           5 June 2009 at 9:02 pm

           Hi mike.

           That’s not a lie at all. I resent that. It’s a metaphor. (but funnily enough you chopped out the bit that made it so. The truncated bit you quoted is the stone cold facts.)

           I’ll be literal for you. Key did not ask to speak to the woman. He did not ask for the evidence. He did not seek to determine the facts of the matter at all, in any way. All he did was ask his staff to do something. I would like to know what those instructions were, because we know that all his staff did was talk to Worth and get his empty promises of an affidavit.

           That was enough for them, even though Goff told Key there was evidence backing up the other side of the story.

           If Key had been interested in the truth of the matter, don’t you think he would have asked for that evidence? (Just to get both sides of the matter. Get the complainants side, get Worth’s affidavit and see if Goff and/or the complainant wanted to take things any further.)

           If Goff said ‘no, you can’t have it’, then that would be one thing. But they didn’t ask, so we will never know. (We do know that once Worths denial became publicised by Key, the woman has come forward, so that gives us a clue.)

           We do not know that Goff told Key the complainant would not hand over the evidence. That is not even a claim that has been made. If Goff had said the evidence would not be shown, I think Key would have been mentioned it by now. Don’t you?

           So where is this lie of mine?

           Did Key ask to speak to the woman?

           Did he avoid the facts, in favour of assertions and assurances from Worth? Assurances that have yet to be followed up on. Do you think Worth will get that affidavit written soon? How about the case against Goff that he also promised?

           Maybe he will, but I’m yet to hear even a denial. Isn’t that just a little strange?
         • burt 6.1.1.1.5

           5 June 2009 at 11:53 pm

           Pascal’s bookie

           At any time she could have laid a complaint with the police. Have I missed something here?

           If it were happening to me would I call my local MP or my preferred party leader? Ummm – let me think about this.

           It’s been badly handled. You claim your lot are blameless, Key’s bunch say they have only just been told AND they have run the same defense you lot have defended before. (I took his word).

           WTF is going on when sexual harassment takes this long to be called in for account. What sort of ‘shielding’ is going on in Goff’s office to allow this to be handled like it has? Why is it framed as a political issue?
         • Pascal's bookie 6.1.1.1.6

           6 June 2009 at 12:26 am

           Burt, you don’t get to decide how the victim should act, she does. Just because she doesn’t act in the way that you should think she should, gives you no right to assume anything.

           She told Goff she didn’t want it to become a huge public deal. Goff respected her wishes, kept in contact with her, and when she felt things had gone too far, she gave Goff permission to make the call. Who knows, maybe it was the text about praying something should happen to her husband.

           Goff could not have made a call previous to that, without exposing her to the sort of attention she did not want. That is her call to make, and she deserves the benefit of the doubt as to her motives. She too is innocent until proven guilty. This is not difficult stuff.

           When Goff made the call, he told Key she had evidence. Key’s investigation never followed up on that.They weren’t even interested in hearing her side of the story. That is different to the Winston case, where they did in fact get both sides of the story.

           It was Key that publicised this case. Not her. Not Goff. They only went public when Key made it public that he had accepted Worths version of events at face value without even hearing from the victim. ie he implied that her claims, which were up until now private, were false. That is the point at which she put more info out there.

           There is no comparison with the Winston case, beyond 1 small detail, and even in that detail, Key is worse because he didn’t even seek her version of events, let alone investigate further.

           Does this live up to your standards Burt?

           Can you support ACT being in such a government?
         • burt 6.1.1.1.7

           6 June 2009 at 12:34 am

           Pascal’s bookie

           Without a partisan hat on, consider this;

           That is her call to make, and she deserves the benefit of the doubt as to her motives. She too is innocent until proven guilty. This is not difficult stuff.

           We do not know that Goff told Key the complainant would not hand over the evidence.

           Now tell me please, what else if Key to do other than take the word of his minister if the evidence was not handed over? And was not available? And there was no official complaint?

           I take it that as it was reported on the news that ‘the evidence will be handed over’ we will have a fresh debate tomorrow? OR I misheard the news.

           Edit: “Key is worse because he didn’t even seek her version of events
           

           It’s not about degree of worseness. But you open a can of worms here. So it’s better to know the facts and not disclose for months than it is to not seek proof when evidence from the ‘victim’ will not be supplied? OK – lets run with that.
         • felix 6.1.1.1.8

           6 June 2009 at 1:00 am

           …when evidence from the ‘victim’ will not be supplied?

           Um, what does this mean?
         • Pascal's bookie 6.1.1.1.9

           6 June 2009 at 1:03 am

           what else if Key to do other than take the word of his minister if the evidence was not handed over?

           Go back to Goff, say ‘Worth denies it’ and ask to see the evidence or to talk to the complainant. How hard would have that been, and given Worths India trip history and other apparent rumours, it should have been done.

           And to be clear, this demand for physical evidence or contact with the complainant would be driven by Worths denial. If the victim doesn’t want to enter a political shitfight, she was under no obligation to put all this stuff in the field of play until Worth denied it. So Goff not handing it over initially is fine.

           And was not available?

           not seek proof when evidence from the ‘victim’ will not be supplied?

           Who said that evidence would not be supplied if requested? I’m not denying it, but if that has been said by anyone I’ve not heard it.

           What I think happened is that the complainant didn’t think Worth would deny it. That he would just quit it and maybe apologise or something. This only got political when Key blurted out that he had accepted Worths denial that the events took place.

           All of a sudden the demands are on the complainant, and she is supposed to be meeting with Key’s office soon, as Key backed out of meeting her himself yet. For unknowable reasons. But all of this should have happened during the ‘investigation’.

           Where is Worths promised affidavit and law suit against Goff though?

           Key failed to investigate a serious complaint, and it shows a pretty serious lack of judgement as I see it. It’s bitten him hard.

           Frankly I’m a bit surprised that you are running close to some of the victim smearing shit that’s been coming from the likes of Ellis.
       • r0b 6.1.1.2

         5 June 2009 at 3:56 pm

         If Hide votes to validate Worth’s behaviour and kills a court case against him I’ll be spitting tacks

         Burt, I know that you know enough about those issues to be aware of what a stupid statement this is. Why do you keep doing it? Why keep making a fool of yourself in this way?
         • burt 6.1.1.2.1

           5 June 2009 at 4:00 pm

           rOb

           Just remember. Legally National/ACT could introduce legislation that specifically and retrospectively indemnifies Worth from any criminal proceedings in this matter. As the legislature they have the authority to do that and as unethical as it would be to do so – it would be legal for them to do that.

           Now needless to say, it would be wrong in the extreme but it would not be illegal. Some might ask National “where is it written you can do that?’ and the only answer national would need is; “where is it written that we can’t’. The same answer Cullen gave when challenged over tipping out the Darnton Vs Clark case.
         • Pascal's bookie 6.1.1.2.2

           5 June 2009 at 4:02 pm

           there are no criminal proceedings in this matter burt. That’s the other matter. Keep up.
         • burt 6.1.1.2.3

           5 June 2009 at 4:06 pm

           No need to even validate it then – move on 🙂
         • r0b 6.1.1.2.4

           5 June 2009 at 4:09 pm

           Now needless to say, it would be wrong in the extreme but it would not be illegal.

           Yes Burt, parliament can do anything it likes. And yet it uses retrospective legislation only in one narrow and technical sense, as you well know.

           “where is it written that we can’t’. The same answer Cullen gave when challenged over tipping out the Darnton Vs Clark case.

           Interesting claim Burt, do you have a source for that quote?

           For Burt, like a broken record, everything always gets back to Darnton vs Clark, the court case that not even his own party, ACT, voted to support.
         • merlin 6.1.1.2.5

           5 June 2009 at 4:09 pm

           It’s not about whether he committed a crime – but you have to wonder if using your power as minister to offer soemone a job in return for faovurs isn’t a crime. It’s about Key’s handling of Worth. A political, not a legal issue.
   • merlin 6.2

     5 June 2009 at 3:34 pm

     So quickly Burt’s demands for higher standards have faded.
     • burt 6.2.1

       5 June 2009 at 3:47 pm

       Quite the opposite actually. The allegations against Worth should be tested in court. Same song I sang through every allegation of breaking the law when Labour were in power.
       • merlin 6.2.1.1

         5 June 2009 at 4:07 pm

         But the issue is whether Key should have fired him earlier, Burt. That’s not an issue for a court, that’s an issue for Key and the public who elected him.
       • burt 6.2.1.2

         5 June 2009 at 4:10 pm

         merlin

         I say yes of course – lprent will then say I’m part of a lynch mob but that won’t stop me having an opinion.
         • lprent 6.2.1.2.1

           6 June 2009 at 1:09 am

           Opinions are allowed (within the usual limits of the policy). Of course other people may have opinions on your opinions (like me for instance)…

           I notice that you haven’t been moderated in quite a while, and still manage to have a lot of opinion, in fact it almost spills over with your kind generosity in sharing it….
   • felix 6.3

     5 June 2009 at 3:34 pm

     IIRC the police did investigate Peters and found nothing to charge him with.

     Somehow I don’t think that’ll be the case for Dr Worth though. Maybe he should join the Labour Party – they’re immune from prosecution aren’t they burt?
     • burt 6.3.1

       5 June 2009 at 3:45 pm

       felix

       By the time the Police were notified the opportunity to charge had expired. Pitty Clark didn’t reveal she knew he was telling porkies for the critical 6 months it took to make it all go away.
       • r0b 6.3.1.1

         5 June 2009 at 3:54 pm

         Thus does Burt run a variety of separate issues through the blender of his memory and reassemble them in to an accusation that makes sense only in Burtworld.
         • Pascal's bookie 6.3.1.1.1

           5 June 2009 at 3:57 pm

           It’s quite something isn’t it?
         • r0b 6.3.1.1.2

           5 June 2009 at 4:11 pm

           Truly spectacular PB, someone should do a thesis on it.
         • ak 6.3.1.1.3

           5 June 2009 at 4:46 pm

           Aye r0b: Sir burt the Obtuse rides on. Curiously, in this instance, minus his oft-repeated, hand-wringing morality tale of how he instructs his four-year-old that “two wrongs don’t make a right”…..guess that little story has been retrospectively invalidated for this particular case….
7. Irascible 7

   5 June 2009 at 4:09 pm

   Is Key resorting to the Muldoon strategies of political management here?

   “Key used the equivalent of a political gun earlier in the day in announcing the effective sacking of Worth, and joked he could have done with a drink himself.

   “The day I had today, it’s a shame the pub wasn’t open at 8am, I might have given a better speech.” ”

   Judging from the way Key is spinning on the head of a pin and mispronouncing at every opportunity there probably is no need.

   The list of stumbles grows ever longer as the crosby-textor manual is withdrawn and the old firm of Pomp & Arrogance gains hold again in the NACT party.
8. JakeQuinn 8

   5 June 2009 at 4:10 pm

   What will be truly horrible is if Worth pulls a Vietch, runs off to someone like celeb media adviser Glenda Hughes and organises a Sunday Paper bidding war to get his side of the story “out there” i can just see it now.. The bidding war leads Hughes to negotiate good deals on worth’s terms in exchange for light questions and Hughes framing of the narrative. Remember, this guys got $$$.

   xxx
9. Relic 9

   5 June 2009 at 4:25 pm

   Burt has perhaps tried to apply physics “uncertainty principle’ to politics. I however can definitely apply the term “Tory apologist’ to him.
10. tsmithfield 10

    5 June 2009 at 4:31 pm

    I don’t think Goff passes from criticism here.

    He obviously new for a very long time what was going on. Even though he didn’t have the womans permission, he could have contacted Key in a very general sense without disclosing any confidences very early on in the piece. This is pretty much what he eventually did anyway, but way to late.

    By not doing so, Goff was allowing Worth to continue with this behaviour with not only this woman, but perhaps with other women as well. If Goff cared so damn much about the welfare of women he should have piped up much earlier.

    At least when the Goff approached Key, Key did take some action which resulted in the behaviour stopping.

    Could Key have done more? Perhaps. I think if all our behaviour was held up to scrutiny there are aspects we could have done better on the basis of hindsight.
    At least he took action to investigate the matter from his side. He then through the ball back to Goff. This was the right thing to do as Goff was acting as agent for the woman.

    It is clear that Goff did not come back to Key with any evidence of what was going on so he is as responsible as anyone.
    • merlin 10.1

      5 June 2009 at 4:43 pm

      You’re saying Goff should have gone against the woman’s express wishes and behind her back to inform Key?

      Oh yeah, I bet you would be singing his praises if he had done that.

      Key’s office came back to Goff’s office and said Worth had been put on notice despite denying the events. They left it at that. That’s why Goff didn’t provide any more evidence at the time.

      Now we learn Key didn’t tell off Worth, he believed him. Now Goff is encouraging Key to meet with the woman.
      • tsmithfield 10.1.1

        5 June 2009 at 5:09 pm

        He didn’t need the woman’s permission to say something like:

        “I am aware of a woman who does not want to be identified who is being harrassed sexually by Richard Worth. Could you have a talk to him about it”

        This would not have broken the womans confidence in anyway at all and allowed Key to make it clear to Worth that such behaviour is unacceptable and should cease immediately if it was happening.

        Afterall, apparently the woman was only interested in it stopping. This would have achieved this end and protected other women as well.

        Great guy Goff. He really cares about women. Not.
        • wtl 10.1.1.1

          5 June 2009 at 5:33 pm

          Yeah, but Worth probably has some idea about who Goff/Key would be talking about so her identity could come out that way.
        • Maynard J 10.1.1.2

          5 June 2009 at 6:29 pm

          “I am aware of a woman who does not want to be identified who is being harrassed sexually by Richard Worth. Could you have a talk to him about it”

          That would not work. Worth’s first question would be ‘which one?’ and they would not be able to act until the name came out.
    • aj 10.2

      5 June 2009 at 6:59 pm

      tsmithfield 4:31

      6 para’s here where you put forward your arguements so contrary to the facts that that you must have one helluva a headache
11. deemac 11

    5 June 2009 at 5:06 pm

    Goff comes out of this as perhaps too nice – a real hardened politico would have unloaded on budget day. He has behaved like a decent gent, while Key has behaved like the sort of weak dithering manager we’ve all seen at various workplaces – only it’s rather more serious when they are running a country. Gawd help us all…
12. calltoaccount 12

    5 June 2009 at 5:09 pm

    Moved
13. Maynard J 13

    5 June 2009 at 5:24 pm

    “He obviously new for a very long time what was going on. Even though he didn’t have the womans permission, he could have contacted Key in a very general sense without disclosing any confidences very early on in the piece. This is pretty much what he eventually did anyway, but way to late.”

    Wrong. What happened (not ‘pretty much’ but actually happened) is that he got permission and then acted. Political expediency dictates that point means roughly zero for you and all the other people out there trying to attack Goff, but I do not imagine it is a line that will hold much traction. You do not strike me as a ‘wingnut’, I am finding your use of these lines odd.

    “At least when the Goff approached Key, Key did take some action which resulted in the behaviour stopping.”

    Wrong. It was the second event that caused the shit to stir. Key just swept the first under the rug.

    “Could Key have done more? Perhaps. I think if all our behaviour was held up to scrutiny there are aspects we could have done better on the basis of hindsight.
    At least he took action to investigate the matter from his side. He then through the ball back to Goff. This was the right thing to do as Goff was acting as agent for the woman.”

    “Perhaps”? Come on. It is a teensy bit more clearcut than some namby-pamby PC “well maybe in hindsight if the planets were aligned differently Key might possibly have done a tiny bit better”.

    Threw the ball back at Goff? What one? Clarkson’s right one? He told Goff he had investigated, which is seemingly code for “I got a staffer to ask Worth and he said it was sweet so I figured it was sweet”. Did not ask for evidence so I am not sure what you mean (unless there’s some new twist I have yet to hear, which is possible).
    • tsmithfield 13.1

      5 June 2009 at 5:36 pm

      Goff sat on his hands and did nothing for a long time.

      He didn’t need permission to act. What if you knew a someone was being sexually molested by another. Would you sit on your hands and do nothing because the molested person wanted to keep it quiet? There are times when it is necessary to take action despite the wishes of the victim.

      As I demonstrated, Goff could have taken action that would have stopped the offending without having to break the woman’s confidence in the slightest. If he had taken the step I recommended in my previous post, the woman probably would never have known, and she would never have been identified. Heck, the only experience the woman would have had in this situation is that the calls had stopped. This is what she wanted.

      Put your brain into gear before you call me a “wing-nut”.
      • Pascal's bookie 13.1.1

        5 June 2009 at 5:44 pm

        Do you think key had an obligation to find out if the claims were true?

        If he found out they were true, do you think Worth should have been sacked?
      • andy 13.1.2

        5 June 2009 at 5:49 pm

        Key sat on his hands and did nothing for a long time

        There fixed it for you.

        He didn’t need permission to act.

        Yes he did when someone expressly asks for no action to be taken. That is breaking someone’s trust, but if your comfortable with that…
      • doc whose asking 13.1.3

        5 June 2009 at 8:14 pm

        @5.36pm This is what she wanted.

        Only partial, TS. From what aired this morning she and her husband had become concerned about pernicious aspects and elements in relation to future employment. Clearly, she had employable skills of value to the government and even if the calls stopped such an individual would be aware of ‘downsides’ likely to arise upon a flat refusal to ‘cooperate’ or collaborate or whatever national government employment contracts render. [ She must be a national party member, for instance..]

        Now you argue quite cogently – albeit conjecture based presently – but as an employer yourself you’ll know fair work practice etc. The point is that this woman and her family does not and I sense that many others would be appalled at such a reality in practice. By this government.

        Part answers unrequired: let’s deal to the fullness of this thing, if you please..
14. tsmithfield 14

    5 June 2009 at 6:00 pm

    andy: “Yes he did when someone expressly asks for no action to be taken. That is breaking someone’s trust, but if your comfortable with that ”

    Yes I am actually. If I knew someone was being bullied at school or at work and had asked that no action was taken, I would definitely do something to stop the abuse, but being careful not to identify the individual concerned.

    If people at the standard are happy to let abuse keep continuing over many months (as Goff did) because the victim didn’t want to be identified, then I feel very sorry for you all.
    • felix 14.1

      5 June 2009 at 6:17 pm

      tsmithfield, are you a mole working for the Labour party? Is that why you’re still digging?

      I think John Key would really appreciate it if you stopped now. I especially think he’d like you to stop using language like “sexually molested”.

      Actually are you Melissa Lee?
      • tsmithfield 14.1.1

        5 June 2009 at 6:21 pm

        So, felix, would you stand by and do nothing while abuse was occuring just because the victim wanted it kept private?
        • calltoaccount 14.1.1.1

          5 June 2009 at 7:02 pm

          It’s the person who was asked to do something about the abuse and didn’t I think is the issue here.
        • felix 14.1.1.2

          5 June 2009 at 11:59 pm

          Oh sorry tsmithfield. For a moment there I thought this was about Dr Worth, National Party Cabinet Minister, “sexually molesting” an unknown number of women and John Key, National Party prime Minister covering it up for him.

          Now, thanks to your razor sharp powers of reasoning I realise it’s actually all about Goff.
    • doc whose asking 14.2

      5 June 2009 at 8:27 pm

      As to your inference of Mr Goff’s dragging this out prior to recent action/reaction.. you may recall how Mr Key had mentioned his awareness of his then Minister’s behavior – rumors etc . We can presume he had so heard from colleagues, staff, associates etc. Indeed parliamentarians are unlikely to have been adrift of such rumors, even Mr. Goff et al. And, given that the offending minister was subject to this, entirely possible was parliamentary understanding that rumors will OUT..

      So, y’see, more pertinent would be to delve into why others, as opposed simply Mr. Goff, did not do as expected..

      There are many answers, of course, but due responsibility is not one of them. And with respect, a singular attack such as yours makes for that lack of responsibility on the government’s side.
15. andy 15

    5 June 2009 at 6:21 pm

    If people at the standard are happy to let abuse keep continuing over many months (as Goff did) because the victim didn’t want to be identified, then I feel very sorry for you all.

    Glad you think Worth’s behaviour was abusive.

    Not every situation is as cut and dried, black and white as you would like it to be. An adult shares concerns over another adults offensive behaviour and asks you to be on the look out, but to take no action. Simple really. Do as asked, keep a look out…
    • tsmithfield 15.1

      5 June 2009 at 6:37 pm

      Yeh. Keep a look-out for over six months. And the abuse kept on happening. So that was a lot of use, wasn’t it?

      A quiet word with Key and the abuse stopped. The quiet word could have taken place back in November last year and there would have been a lot less suffering for her.
      • Maynard J 15.1.1

        5 June 2009 at 6:42 pm

        Look what a quiet word did earlier – nothing. Absolutely nothing. What are you talking about?

        By the way, are you angry at Key for doing nothing when first told? Oh, yeah, you think “Could Key have done more? Perhaps. I think if all our behaviour was held up to scrutiny there are aspects we could have done better on the basis of hindsight.”

        Truly pathetic – Goff is the evil villian, even though he did something. Maybe you should try and get some respect by giving a slightly lest biased opinion.
16. calltoaccount 16

    5 June 2009 at 6:33 pm

    tsmithfield: Your attacks on Goff are absolute rubbish. The main one who could have stopped this was Worth himself of course. No luck there obviously, so who comes to mind?

    Who could sack him? Clue: “would have sacked Dr Worth on the spot” (Key).

    Who says he likes to get the evidence then act? Clue: “we needed to resolve all the matters first” (Key). (A tick here I guess, just didn’t get any.)

    Who sounds like he needs a lesson in sensitivity and would be unlikely to keep the complainant out of the spotlight? Clue: “and if he gives them to me I’ll give them to the media” (Key).

    Answers: Key, Key and Key again.

    Seriously. Think about what you are defending here. It’s a disgrace.
    • tsmithfield 16.1

      5 June 2009 at 6:41 pm

      I am not defending anyone. I’m attacking Goff, in case you didn’t realise.

      As with any abuse situation, of course the abuser ceasing is the best way of stopping the abuse. That is so obvious its not even worth saying.

      The person who sat on his hands and did nothing despite the ongoing abuse was Goff. He confirms it with his own words. This is inexcusable. Trying to argue that it was due to keeping a confidence is just pathetic. As I have already shown, he could have dealt with this with Key without betraying the confidence at all. The fact he didn’t shows he is more interested in scoring political points than protecting this woman.
      • calltoaccount 16.1.1

        5 June 2009 at 6:54 pm

        You are no more than offering distractions from the main event: a set of failures that Key was involved in, every step of the way. Decisions or the absence of them, over and over.
      • calltoaccount 16.1.2

        5 June 2009 at 7:10 pm

        Glad you noticed that: the abuser ceasing is the best way of stopping the abuse. Needs to be said repeatedly sorry, as you seem to have forgotten in your haste to transfer blame.

        Now who appointed him, worked with him, etc etc. Was it isolated? Allowed, missed, tolerated? Who by? Guess…

        And just to be clear, running endless distractions aren’t what I would be proud of in a case like this.
17. Maynard J 17

    5 June 2009 at 6:38 pm

    I did not call you a wing nut, I pointed out that you are using lines generally attributed to them, and it seemed out of sorts. It appears to be growing on you though.

    Goff was not sitting on his hands. Get that into your head – he was in regular contact. Would have been a bit uncomfortable to catch up and say “by the way, yeah, sort of went over your head so that I look good later. I know that you specifically did not want me to, but some right wingers will attack me about this if I don’t. Best of luck with the media”.

    Look at what Key is doing – refused to meet the complainant today, refused to do anything weeks ago, and is now demanding to see the ‘textes’. Your suggesed course of action only makes sense if Goff came to Key with less information than he did. Suppose it might have shut you up (doubtless you would be here complaining about that evil Goff breaking confidences for political expediency) but would have achieved about zip.
18. aj 18

    5 June 2009 at 7:05 pm

    tsmithfiel 6:31

    Where is your brain. Goff told Key about it, and expected Key to step in. I think that in view of your comments in recent days over this whole affair. you credibility is completely shot full of holes.

    captcha lol truthin intelligence
19. Kaplan 19

    5 June 2009 at 7:39 pm

    Just when you thought the mask could not slip any further…

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2474430/Goff-accuses-Key-of-backing-down-over-meeting

    Mr Key said this morning he would meet her.
    “I am happy to rearrange my schedule and meet her as quickly as I can,” Mr Key said.
    But this afternoon Mr Key said on Radio Live he wanted his staff to meet her first.
    “My chief of staff, my office, has been in contact with her today, they will arrange a meeting with her when she presents the text messages and her version of events,” Mr Key said.
    “If they are of a nature that would warrant a meeting, we will have a meeting with her.”
    • burt 19.1

      6 June 2009 at 12:18 am

      Now that was simple wasn’t it. No reporters required, now lawyers necessary. That’s all it took to bring a complaint, present a copy of the evidence and arrange a meeting once it has been considered.

      Yaaa hoooo. Process underway. Good work team.
20. Norma 20

    5 June 2009 at 9:51 pm

    There’s a rumour round Wellington that a goat is involved. Must be why Key was a bit gruff on Moaning Report with Sean Plonker.
21. felix 21

    6 June 2009 at 12:08 am

    So what about “tsmithfield”? Official National spin merchant or hapless unpaid sucker?
22. burt 22

    6 June 2009 at 12:11 am

    felix

    Or just another opinionated prick like the rest of us?
    • felix 22.1

      6 June 2009 at 12:55 am

      Heh. Of course that wouldn’t exclude either of the other two possibilities I mentioned.
23. tsmithfield 23

    6 June 2009 at 6:41 am

    Let me make it easy for you.

    Imagine how Goff would have looked if this situation had escalated into something much more serious and it came out that he could have done something about it six months earlier. How would all his hand-wringing about protecting confidences have looked then?

    The moment he became aware of this situation he could have told the woman: “I can’t let this situation continue. I am going to do something about it but I will ensure that you cannot be personally identified.” He could have then immediately gone to Key in exactly the way he did six months later. This would have had exactly the same effect of stopping the abuse, except it would have been nipped in the bud and prevented the possibility of something more serious happening.

    Someone with moral spine knows when it is the right time to take action. Goff obviously does not seem to have this attribute.

    If you continue to defend Goff and his part in this, I can only assume that you are so blinded by ideology that you would defend the indefensible no matter what. Or you are as morally confused and spineless as what Goff appears to be.
    • felix 23.1

      6 June 2009 at 11:13 am

      So it’s all about Goff? Is that what you’re (still) saying?

      Sorry I’m a bit dense so you’ll have to spell it out for me. The Nats have really got in a mess here with all the “sexual molesting” that tsmithfield referred to and it seems he wants us to believe it’s all because Goff.

      I’m still trying to get my head around why Key hiring “sexual molesters” and covering for them when they’re caught is Goff’s fault, but keep it up, I’m sure I’ll understand eventually if you just keep repeating it.

      captcha: are teacups
      Yep, it’s starting to look very much like Key, Worth, tsmithfield and all the other “sexual molesters” and enablers and defenders are very much a bunch of teacups. And by “teacups” of course I mean cockholes.
      • Maynard J 23.1.1

        6 June 2009 at 5:09 pm

        Should we teabag Worth to show displeasure?
        • Zetetic 23.1.1.1

          6 June 2009 at 5:12 pm

          Key and a bunch of his mates recently got together for a mass mutual teabagging. It was called the Jobs Summit.
        • Anita 23.1.1.2

          6 June 2009 at 5:14 pm

          teabag? or tea bag?

          P.S. I would like to apologise in advance for any wingnut responses to my comment
    • Irascible 23.2

      6 June 2009 at 5:26 pm

      Let’s face it. Goff behaved honorably by going to Key when he was asked to and only when the complainant made that request.
      Key failed to take the complaint as a credible one in order to protect his appointee to Cabinet portfolios. His ability and hyped reputation as a a model of probity looks and sounds like that of any money speculator somewhat shonky all around.
      The fault on this issue lies with Key in appointing a man whose reputation has been suspect. Key’s judgment is at stake here. The response must be It is suspect!
      Worth, as a man and a Cabinet Minister has demonstrated that he has little or no moral probity and should not have been allowed anywhere near a position of responsibility.
      Both should step down as both have questionable ability to make responsible judgments.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS