This morning Labour leader Phil Goff told TV1’s Breakfast that he had approached John Key four to six weeks ago concerning what appeared to be a sex for favours approach Dr Worth had made to a Labour party member, half his age and married.

Mr Goff says the allegations were verifiable, and had emails and call logs of inappropriate communications, which included sordid holiday invitations and requests involving see-through clothing.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/worth-scandal-brings-goff-back-relevance-103291

Perhaps Worth, as an incoming Minister, became quickly aware of Choundry’s tawdry immigration-related dealings and sought to leverage his position, so to speak, in a number of tawdry ways…?

Noting, of course, that my question relates to something that you personally said. You’re asking me to defend something that WhaleOil said – not sure why I’d want to do that.

I was waiting for one of you defend ““Mrs Choudary may have been pimped out by Mr Goff.” The silence speaks volumes

If I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, I’d say it is Friday arvo, he probably went to get a beer.

If I used history as a judge, I’d say he is following his usual modus operandi. Spread a bit of shit around, and then run as soon as you’re called on it. Only to turn up on another thread tomorrow or next week making the same allegations, and batting away any suggestion that we’ve already had this argument and he was flat out wrong. I guess it’s hard work being a troll.

Consider the Time-line: Mr Goff says Neelam first met Dr Worth during the election campaign when he (Goff) was still a Minister and that it was Dr Worth who organised the meeting with Neelam Choudary on 26 November. Dr Worth was appointed as Minister of Internal Affairs on 19 November 2009. New Ministers receive reports to the incoming government from their departments detailing vacant Board positions and some time later, after due consideration, set about processes to ensure that nominations are called for etc.

Is it really conceivable that Dr Worth was so desperate to get Mrs Choudary – a known “Labour party activist” – appointed as an Ethnic Affairs advisor as Mr Goff claims – that he arranged to have a meeting with her just days after he was appointed Minister – for this purpose? Mr Goff would have us believe that Dr Worth’s real agenda was to offer her a job for romantic favours.

But is it not possible that the first meeting between Neelam Choudary and Dr Worth was set up at HER request, rather than Dr Worth’s, to discuss matters relating to the immigration/passport scam charges her husband was facing in the Court?

Why exactly did Goff advise her to take someone with her if it was Dr Worth who initiated the meeting to merely discuss a Board position on offer? Mr Goff has failed to explain his elaborate involvement in the pre-meeting advice, the lengthy post-meeting monitoring, collating, cataloguing, collecting and compilation of multiple so-called sleazy phone texts from Dr Worth to his “strikingly attractive” Labour party friend.

Is it not reasonable for the New Zealand public to assume that Mrs Choudary may have sought advice from her friend Mr Goff (in his role as Minister) about the charges her husband faced and then been advised by him to see Dr Worth as he was the incoming Minister of Internal Affairs with responsibilities relating to passports, work visas etc (the subject of the criminal charges)? But of course we cannot take this view because Mr Goff says he knew “nothing about the plight of Mrs Choudary’s husband prior to the meeting on 26 November 2008.

Some are suggesting that in effect Goff was the “pimp” who set up the Choudary-Worth ‘relationship’ and milked the ‘scandal’ and claimed ‘sleaze phone texts’ for all they were worth. No such evidence has yet been put to the Prime Minister of “text sleaze”

Some say Dr Richard Worth is very unlikely to have been looking to make appointment to any Boards or appoint advisors at this early stage – having only just been appointed a Minister. He had only recently been briefed by the relevant Departments about such Board vacancies. For example, the Deputy Chief Censor’s position which expired on 28 September 2008 was notified to him in mid-November 2008 by way of a Report to the Incoming Minister by the Department of Internal Affairs. And no process has yet been completed re any reappointment or replacement of the incumbent Nicola McCully. Two positions on the Film and Literature Board of Review (president Ms Claudia Elliott and ordinary board member) expired on 31 March 2009 and no announcement has yet been made by the Minister’s Office.

Have Neelam Choudary and Phil Goff told the truth about the purpose of the first meeting between Dr Worth and Mrs Choudary? Dr Worth is saying nothing at present until the Police investigation is completed on another matter involving a woman.

Give me strength….

How about you try answering the question asked instead of diverting onto another topic. You called DPF misogynistic, what exactly is it that he did that you think is misogynistic, and why do you think that meets the definition of the word? Or, you could just admit you were wrong and apologise. I’m sure DPF will be gracious.

Ummm hello
Does the name Christine Rankin ring any bells?
Or do you leftist dipshits think the public has a memory of no more than three weeks?

Paul, I think the above answers your question as well.

How much lower can you guys go?

After all those would have governed ( Mr Goff) and those who sought to govern ( Mrs Choudray owe a duty to the citizens to explain their actions Again on pain of death

Think Mallard would get his retaliation in first, by jumping him from behind however.

Oh hang on a minute………….!